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...

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

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.

I don't think we're dealing with a largely educated populace. If anything, many of the educated people fled Syria a long time ago. Part of the point of the uprising was the denial of many rights to these people. Yes, they should be able to work it out more, but I don't think you can hold them to the same kinds of standards that you hold a trained army to. And while I agree there should be some kind of punishement for these people, not intervening for this reason isn't a satisfying or complete answer. If anything, this is more of a reason for intervention, to nip the issue of this kind of thing in the bud before it gets worse.

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.

That doesn't mean all rebel groups will be the same.

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.

I understand that right now the rebellion is fragmented, that's why they're trying to become more organised.

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

That's a non sequiter. It does not follow that because the rebellion is fragmented, we should not intervene. Whether the rebellion is fragmented or not, the Syrian government is still targeting civilians indiscriminately, and the population have a clear desire for regime change (even if there is disagreement about what should replace it). Those are good reasons why we should intervene. Why is the fact that the rebellion has flaws a reason for us not to get involved. If you're waiting for a perfect rebellion, I have news for you, it isn't going to happen. No rebellion has been perfect. The world supported the ending of apartheid, even though the groups in SA fighting for it were terrorists who targeted civilians intentionally.

[Kenth]

I don't think we're dealing with a largely educated populace. If anything, many of the educated people fled Syria a long time ago. Part of the point of the uprising was the denial of many rights to these people. Yes, they should be able to work it out more, but I don't think you can hold them to the same kinds of standards that you hold a trained army to. And while I agree there should be some kind of punishement for these people, not intervening for this reason isn't a satisfying or complete answer. If anything, this is more of a reason for intervention, to nip the issue of this kind of thing in the bud before it gets worse.

The country has one of the highest educated people in the Arab world and most low income countries. 18.4% of GDP goes to education. They are a educated people and most people educated or not, is stranded in the hell that is Syria.

Also, I don't hold them to the same as an army because Assads own army has shown no better records and even worse than the rebels. I hold them to heir own ideals. Democracy, freedom, justice and safety. If your going to have high standards you better try keep in line to reach them.

But it's also problematic because we know this is happening but not to what extent.

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The country has one of the highest educated people in the Arab world and most low income countries. 18.4% of GDP goes to education. They are a educated people and most people educated or not, is stranded in the hell that is Syria.

They are state educated, they may not have access to the ideas etc of the outside world that many others have.

Also, I don't hold them to the same as an army because Assads own army has shown no better records and even worse than the rebels. I hold them to heir own ideals. Democracy, freedom, justice and safety.

 

Those are good ideals, but there's no point in holding a group to them that doesn't have the same capacity as all the others. Don't expect a plumber to be a whizz at teaching theoretical physics. The rebels arn't an organised army. Blaming them all for the actions of some isn't apt, in the same way it would be for an army. In an army there is a clear command structure. An individual military incident is either insubordination or part of a wider strategy. And since Assads troops are under direct governmental control, you can hardly call their consistent attacking of civilians insubordination.

But it's also problematic because we know this is happening but not to what extent.

Very limited. The large scale actions of the rebels have always been military targets. That demonstrates the nature of their campaign. When they are organised, they follow the rules of war, and when they are not, there is more anarchic action, but it is heavily criticised. That's what's amazing.

[Kenth]

"They are state educated, they may not have access to the ideas etc of the outside world that many others have."

Of the 46 schools in Aleppo, 24 of them are private. (List of schools) And according to Stateuniversity.com, 5% attend private Schools in Syria which is not that small if you compare with the 11% of American students that attend private schools.

Those are good ideals, but there's no point in holding a group to them that doesn't have the same capacity as all the others. Don't expect a plumber to be a whizz at teaching theoretical physics. The rebels arn't an organised army. Blaming them all for the actions of some isn't apt, in the same way it would be for an army. In an army there is a clear command structure. An individual military incident is either insubordination or part of a wider strategy. And since Assads troops are under direct governmental control, you can hardly call their consistent attacking of civilians insubordination.

So you are comparing a plumber teaching theoretical physics with the ability to organise rebels? I don't think that is even near the same thing. The question is not whether they are a organized army or not, it's about their ideals that they are not consisted with and therefore it becomes problematic to pick their side. I believe in a more neutral stand where we should try to eliminate Assad trough a bait rather than a bullet to secure the Syrian peoples safety and a more democratic development.

 

To give you another example from september 17, U.N released a document stating that both sides have committed warcrimes and crimes against humanity.

Crimes against humanity is a serious offense, even if you are fighting for a good cause.

And if it would be limited, then the evidence would be scarce and not lead to an accusation of crimes against humanity in my opinion.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Of the 46 schools in Aleppo, 24 of them are private. (List of schools) And according to Stateuniversity.com, 5% attend private Schools in Syria which is not that small if you compare with the 11% of American students that attend private schools.

And how regulated are they?

The question is not whether they are a organized army or not, it's about their ideals that they are not consisted with and therefore it becomes problematic to pick their side.

The problem is that this isn't representative of the entire rebellion. If it was, there wouldn't be so many people in the Rebellion condemning them

[Eystein,]

To give you another example from september 17, U.N released a document stating that both sides have committed warcrimes and crimes against humanity.

Crimes against humanity is a serious offense, even if you are fighting for a good cause.

And if it would be limited, then the evidence would be scarce and not lead to an accusation of crimes against humanity in my opinion.

The difference is that rebels are not just one side, and are driven by numerous motives and ideals, as well as under the influence of other non-governmental foreign elements as well, as your article also stated, which is a concern considering the sort of organizations who take interest. Assad however does have full control, and ultimate responsibility, for his side and has been prepped for this game since the day he was born (as such, I guess he's a victim too I suppose...).

“It is apparent that the crimes and abuses committed by antigovernment groups, though serious, did not reach the gravity, frequency and scale of those committed by the government forces and shabiha,” Mr. Pinheiro said.

The postal office incident was obviously a horrendous act of unnecessary violence against defenseless people, worthy of the term crime against humanity. But as the article also mention, it had been 12 incidents of known HR violations committed by anti-governmental forces prior to this particular report (I guess there would be more now), but if the example below was the worst of it, then I mean, it's not that serious. They forgot to give them a trial, assuming they would have been able to take them alive.

Battalion members told the rights group that after storming a police station there in June, they killed two snipers on the roof. The fighters, referring to an opposition group of army defectors known as the Free Syrian Army, explained that “everyone saw that they had been shooting at us and killing F.S.A. fighters, so there was no need for a trial.”

I'm not saying that it's all insignificant. There were certainly troublesome accounts such as this one:

Some groups used prisoners to detonate vehicle-borne explosives, killing them, and used other indiscriminate improvised explosive devices that threatened civilians.

But overall the conclusion was this:

“It is apparent that the crimes and abuses committed by antigovernment groups, though serious, did not reach the gravity, frequency and scale of those committed by the government forces and shabiha,” Mr. Pinheiro said.

After 18 months of escalating violence, the conflict in Syria seems likely to continue until one side or the other is too exhausted to go on, Mr. Pinheiro said, but “this is a war neither side can win.”

I still think there are ample opportunity to help consolidate a faction that we can support with intel and air support, like we did in Libya. In exchange they must to the best of their ability comply with our international agreements on appropriate warfare. We should, as we involve ourselves, make it perfectly clear that anyone, no matter which side, will be held accountable in accordance with the UN standards. I think it is unreasonable to impose our jurisdiction otherwise. We could aid in the handling of prisoners, and see to that their rights are protected as well.

[Eystein,]

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.

I get what you're saying, but I have to agree with Vertigo. We have to remember that the revolutionary movement started out peacefully, and remained so for the longest time, even after the military started shooting at them. It's obvious that the ideologies we'd like to see, or at least the understanding that in order to fight the government they mustn't succumb to same manner of cheap tricks, were widely held. I, as Vertigo, believe that the vast majority of the protesters still believe in sound principles of justice and dignity, and are horrified about how these actions done by other branches of the resistance are harming innocents, and even hurting their overall cause.

To some people Gandhi is just for sissies no matter what you say. I think it's safe to assume that many of those who took charge of the armed resistance had been advocating retaliation against the government long before they got heard. I myself is amazed how long it took before they started fighting back. Peaceful resistance is very efficient, but it can take it's toll when it drags on like it did in Syria and bodies keeps piling up. It breaks the resolve and lends ear to those who would rather die fighting, than to stand target practice.

Nothing wrong in that per se, but if you follow one of these people, there are no guarantee that their moral compass is very astute (even if they are highly educated), and it's easy to get caught up in their blind rage, but not so easy to get out if you feel that what they demand of you is not what you signed up for. It is not unlikely, that after the movement gave up peaceful resistance, that many people got caught up in semi-autonomous gangs at random, due to a lack of a unifying consensus on how to move forward. (Or simply mental tiredness of listening to political dream weaving.)

The leaders of such groups may have very different ideas and motives. Some may have picked up their arms with great sadness wile others may have been more eager and less willing to listen to moderation, or otherwise other ethical concerns. Their structure and the demands of their followers will differ as well. Let's hope that the strong reaction in the Syrian blogosphere, as well from other notable spokesmen, against these unlawful killings, may prove disciplinary on the groups that have committed them, or at least persuade some of the followers to leave.

It may not sway the worst of the leaders, and they should be persecuted if it ever gets to that, but in the mean time it is more important to quell their influence and attraction. And for that you need a credible alternative for those who still want to fight, but not in a manner that harms the movement. I think that if we assist and cooperate with the moderate branches of the rebels, then we might help create an environment where their alternative seem more attractive (all things considering...).

Besides I don't think that Human Rights or practical implications of ethical war conventions are high up on the Syrian educational agenda. If it's covered at all, it's probably used to exemplify Western hypocrisies. I read it all the time on the web, people who hate Human Rights for no other reason that they think they are nothing more than a Western conspiracy to boss everyone else around; an excuse we've invented to invade and uphold our post-colonial empire.

[Eystein,]

Good god... Suppose I have to rewrite this shit, cause it makes no sense what so ever... lol

[Tòmachan ~blogs admin ~]

I see the war more as a battle of faith, you have the Sunni Muslims fighting with the Shiites. 
If we take a side, we're reinforcing that said side is the right one. We're endorsing one half of faith against the other.

Do I think Assad has to go? Yes, simple as that. 

But it's going to open a whole lot more cans of worms if it happens. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I see the war more as a battle of faith, you have the Sunni Muslims fighting with the Shiites.

 

That's massively over simplistic. Shiites and Sunnis have existed alongside each other for decades in Syria. It's not that. This is the Arab spring that started this, and that was most definitely not a religious conflict.

[Tòmachan ~blogs admin ~]

Indeed, but I'll bet my left foot that the war in Syria has been hijacked by such thought. It's been an excuse to settle old dates and what, yes parts of the resistance want change; others just want to be bigoted against the opposing group. Reason why it's not a clear cut jump or don't jump.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Indeed, but I'll bet my left foot that the war in Syria has been hijacked by such thought.

 

I don't see evidence of that yet. When the same thing happened in Iraq, in 2006, it was much much clearer and people were very open about what they were doing. There were death squads and indiscriminate violence by civilians of each sort. But here, the lines are much clearer, and the rebellion seems to much more openly criticise those who act in a fashion not befitting a proper rebellion (even if they don't have the full ability to control it). That said, if we don't want it to degenerate into extremism, we need to act sooner rather than later.