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...

[Aidan Park]

Fact of the matter is we can't simply ignore the political tangle that's associated with the West marching into Syria.

We simply can't. MAYBE going in we might be able to help Syria (it's always a gamble) but we will definitely piss off lot of other countries (some powerful ones at that) and it'll be detrimental for the West in terms of economy and international relations by setting the precedent of "we will ignore national sovereignty when we deem it's okay for us to go in when we feel like it".

Yes it's obvious that situation in Syria is horrifying. But that doesn't mean other countries will forget after all is said and done that West did simply march into an another country with their military because they decided to do so. 

With Syria, West will be setting a precedent that we will go in even though there are many countries who doesn't want us to go in. That'll cause the obvious ripple on the surface and even more detrimental tidal wave under surface to our friendly-countries-who-are-dying-to-RIP-OUR-THROATS that we will not play ball with them. We will do what we want.

People already think West is too gung-ho and selfishly self-righteous.

Sad fact of the matter is - with anything in life sometimes you have to get your hands dirty for the better future. Reality doesn't care about black or white, it just gives us choices and consequences. 

There's no general consensus to send the West in. The West knows this and we know to not to bare fangs when we are not ready to bite. If West goes in, they will be risking their own security, their future, and chance at world's calamity. 

In the end, there's only two countries that can really help Syria. Sadly, neither one is in the West. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

We simply can't. MAYBE going in we might be able to help Syria (it's always a gamble) but we will definitely piss off lot of other countries (some powerful ones at that) and 

Yes it will be a tangle, but I hardly think that's a reason for doing nothing.

it'll be detrimental for the West in terms of economy and international relations by setting the precedent of "we will ignore national sovereignty when we deem it's okay for us to go in when we feel like it".

That prescenednt is pretty well established, and in many occasions no one really questions it. No one seriously thinks the West should have stayed out of Kosovo in the late 1990s, for instance. Although it might have been nice if our weapons were more precise, we did good things for that country in the long term.

Yes it's obvious that situation in Syria is horrifying. But that doesn't mean other countries will forget after all is said and done that West did simply march into an another country with their military because they decided to do so.

I disagree. The Lybian, Afghan and Kosovan examples demonstrate a populace that overall, is happy with Western intervention, but there are a minority who aggressively oppose it (in the case of Afghanistan). Also, it isn't an arbitrary decision. The West wouldn't just do it "because they choose to". They'll do it because of what the Syrian government is doing.

With Syria, West will be setting a precedent that we will go in even though there are many countries who doesn't want us to go in.

Erm... who are those countries exactly? So far, the main opponents to the intervention in Syria would be the Syrian government (who are killing their own people, and so hardly worth listening to) and the Russians and the Chinese. The Arab league would welcome our involvement. Who exactly are you refering to as an objecting party. If its the Russians and the Chinese, they're the last people in the world we should be getting a lesson on good government from.

People already think West is too gung-ho and selfishly self-righteous.

 

How is it self rightous to help Syria in this instance? The people inside Syria want it, the countries surrounding Syria would welcome it? Morally, it's rather hard to say it's "right" to let Assad do what he's doing. What is nessecarily self rightous about this? Would it have been self rightious for the west to intervene in Rwanda?

In the end, there's only two countries that can really help Syria. Sadly, neither one is in the West.

 

And who are they then?

[ego Ipse]

Yes, and quoting Tom Lehrer, "They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means".

 

 

That prescenednt is pretty well established, and in many occasions no one really questions it.

Also, establishing the precedent in by killing someone does not make mass murder more legitimate. It's a slippery slope you are falling in. 

You really think that no one questions it? Just because it does not air on TV, does not mean that the Pakistani are rejoicing with the US drone attacks. 

No one seriously thinks the West should have stayed out of Kosovo in the late 1990s, for instance. Although it might have been nice if our weapons were more precise, we did good things for that country in the long term.

Kosovo is in Europe; geography matters. Also see above. Dropping explosive devices does not equate into good under any definition I may have of it.

 

One side note, you ask whether "we" should intervene.. May I remind you that unless your "we" is the UN, the all argument falls into pieces of a shattered neocolonialism.

 I disagree. The Lybian, Afghan and Kosovan examples demonstrate a populace that overall, is happy with Western intervention, 

You must be watching too much fox news my friend.

but there are a minority who aggressively oppose it (in the case of Afghanistan). Also, it isn't an arbitrary decision. 

 

The syrian government is ran by psychopaths. I agree. 

If one lives under such a regime one should uprise. Check

Should help be given to those fighting for their rights. Indeed

The thing is, the West has not the best of track records, and if fire-fighters fight fire, one should ask what do freedom-fighters fight.

Overthrowing a regime from the outside (by direct intervention) is a recipe for chaos.

The West wouldn't just do it "because they choose to". They'll do it because of what the Syrian government is doing

 Assuming the west always have the moral high ground and is entitled and responsible for the politics of the other countries makes my bones chill.

Erm... who are those countries exactly? So far, the main opponents to the intervention in Syria would be the Syrian government (who are killing their own people, and so hardly worth listening to) and the Russians and the Chinese.

Should I remind you of the above? Also, both russia and china are sovereign nations with WMDs and seats on the security council of the UN

The Arab league would welcome our involvement.

You mean the other absolute dictatorships? I'm sure they'll be glad to help.

Who exactly are you refering to as an objecting party. If its the Russians and the Chinese, they're the last people in the world we should be getting a lesson on good government from.

Stop regarding yourself as the pinnacle of of ethics and notice that those two countries are inhabited by 1.5 billion other humans. BE HUMBLE TO OTHERS FIRST. Also, "the west" should be taking a lesson or two in GDP growth from china.

How is it self rightous to help Syria in this instance? The people inside Syria want it, the countries surrounding Syria would welcome it?

Because you are taking yourself to be not a human but a white knight riding a unicorn on top of a rainbow

Morally, it's rather hard to say it's "right" to let Assad do what he's doing.

I tend to assert good and bad as benefit or detriment to humanity, and in that stance, he is wrong. But righteousness is not engraved in stone, it's subjective, for both good and bad; and although I believe he is deranged, he probably believes to be right and to hold the truth, and that is the problem of absolute moralities. Can you start yo see your problem? 

What is nessecarily self rightous about this? Would it have been self rightious for the west to intervene in Rwanda?

We were the ones to make new and arbitrary borders and racial tensions in africa in order to divide and conquer the resources, so I'd say that most of all it'd be hypocritical 

 

 

 

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Also, establishing the precedent in by killing someone does not make mass murder more legitimate. It's a slippery slope you are falling in.

 

No, its not. That's an action. I'm talking about a court.

You really think that no one questions it? Just because it does not air on TV, does not mean that the Pakistani are rejoicing with the US drone attacks.

I wasn't talking about drones. No one seriously questions what the US are doing, they are however questioning how they do it.

Kosovo is in Europe; geography matters.

 

No it doesn't. Don't just say it does. Prove why it does.

 

Also see above. Dropping explosive devices does not equate into good under any definition I may have of it.

 

It does if you are destroying that which is bad.

One side note, you ask whether "we" should intervene.. May I remind you that unless your "we" is the UN, the all argument falls into pieces of a shattered neocolonialism.

 

Neocolonialism is a massive hack. It basicaly boils down to the argument that because we did bad things to various places in the past, that means anything we do now must be bad also, and self interested.

You must be watching too much fox news my friend.

Lybians marched down the street with placards thanking the US and Europe. Afghanistan is busy rebuilding itself, and many if Afghanistan trust British and American forces far more than their own security. It is the Taliban who are attacking them, not the native population in large numbers. Kosovo has rebuilt itself into an indepenednt nation, and it is happy. Provide proof please that in any of these countries the attitude is majoritively anti-western?

Overthrowing a regime from the outside (by direct intervention) is a recipe for chaos.

 

Initial chaos, yes, but if managed properly, it can be contained and controlled.

Assuming the west always have the moral high ground and is entitled and responsible for the politics of the other countries makes my bones chill.

 

In this instance the West does have the moral high ground, because it isn't going around massacring its own population.

Should I remind you of the above? Also, both russia and china are sovereign nations with WMDs and seats on the security council of the UN

So? They're also both completely undemocratic. They know that if the UN allows an attack against one of their fellow autocrats, its only a matter of time before they have the wrath of the world against them.

You mean the other absolute dictatorships? I'm sure they'll be glad to help.

Egypt is a democracy, Iraq is a democracy, Lybia is a democracy, Lebanon is a democracy. Sure there are some horrible governments there, but you're oversimplifying things here.

Stop regarding yourself as the pinnacle of of ethics and notice that those two countries are inhabited by 1.5 billion other humans. BE HUMBLE TO OTHERS FIRST. Also, "the west" should be taking a lesson or two in GDP growth from china.

The numbers they have are irrelevant. It is the governmental systems that are relevent here. GDP growth in China is irrelevent. It looks like a large number, but that's because of where China is starting off with. The massive rural population of China means that a 5% growth in GDP is less than a 1% growth in US GDP.

Because you are taking yourself to be not a human but a white knight riding a unicorn on top of a rainbow

No, I'm taking myself to be a human, and knowing the difference between right and wrong.

I tend to assert good and bad as benefit or detriment to humanity, and in that stance, he is wrong.

If he is wrong in what he is doing, how can stopping him be anything other than right.

We were the ones to make new and arbitrary borders and racial tensions in africa in order to divide and conquer the resources, so I'd say that most of all it'd be hypocritical

 

We didn't cause Rwanda's genocide. The Rwandans made the choice to pick up the machetes. They didn't have to do this. Claiming it's the west's fault takes away their agency and patronises them.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Yes it is well set - and that's a horrible thing. We shouldn't be proud of that or perpetuate that. It's not righteous or commendable anymore.

I'm sorry, your right, we should just let governments massacre their own civilians whenever they like [/Sarcasm].

You're seriously suggesting we should have let Kosovo go to hell?

And Yes they do. There are still lot of debates to this day when Kosovo gets brought up WHY United States went in and a huge backlash for WHY United States is the police officer of the world. Who gave them the right?

Because ultimately, no one else takes up the mantle.

But really? You are bringing up Kosovo? Pre 9-11 US vs 2012 US? Regardless, again, Kosovo was even then pretty controversial - everyone who was involved is still cleaning up the aftermath.

Kosovo was bad, but there is virtually no serious disagreement with the US's decision to intervene, because it is broadly understood that had they not done so, the results would have been far worse.

Yes because starting bad blood with China and Russia is such a great idea for the West right now.

I don't really see why we should be in their good books if it means turning a blind eye to this kind of evil.

It doesn't matter whether or not we like their policies or how they run their countries. What does matter is the reality of the circumstances of our standing with them and what it means to go against them in the long run. Sad but the cold truth.

International realism. When we have the option, we should fight something that's outright wrong.

And are we not going in because we respect the Syrian government. OF COURSE NOT. But do we respect that they have a system of government and they are a country of their own. OF COURSE WE SHOULD.

 

A government looses all legitimacy and thus right to respect when it no longer defends the human rights of its people.

BUT it sets a POOR precedent of: Anytime there's trouble in other countries, a country should step right in and solve it for them.

No, not "anytime" but when it gets serious enough. The UN charter is based on that fact. Intervention is sometimes nessecary when things get bad.

I studied under one of the world leaders in philosophy for human rights. I will give you his email if you can provide me such an argument. I'm sure he and you can make great use of it and help the world out.

Guess what. So did I. At PHD level. So I too know a few things about the principles of ethics and intervention in situations like this. And Syria fits a long list of critera that we've used in the past to intervene, as well as where we havn't, and then later wished we had. 

Anytime another country meddles in other countries affairs it gets messy. Anytime military gets involved - it's usually messy.

The fact that its messy doesn't justify inaction.

[Aidan Park]

That prescenednt is pretty well established, and in many occasions no one really questions it. No one seriously thinks the West should have stayed out of Kosovo in the late 1990s, for instance. Although it might have been nice if our weapons were more precise, we did good things for that country in the long term.

Yes it is well set - and that's a horrible thing. We shouldn't be proud of that or perpetuate that. It's not righteous or commendable anymore. And Yes they do. There are still lot of debates to this day when Kosovo gets brought up WHY United States went in and a huge backlash for WHY United States is the police officer of the world. Who gave them the right?

Was the result good? Depends on who you ask. But sure I'd agree with you that it would have been uglier if we didn't. We got lucky with that one - although how things did turn out wasn't very pretty at all. But are the immediate results all that matters? No. Are the results that benefits Kosovo all that matters? No. 

But really? You are bringing up Kosovo? Pre 9-11 US vs 2012 US? Regardless, again, Kosovo was even then pretty controversial - everyone who was involved is still cleaning up the aftermath.

Erm... who are those countries exactly? So far, the main opponents to the intervention in Syria would be the Syrian government (who are killing their own people, and so hardly worth listening to) and the Russians and the Chinese. The Arab league would welcome our involvement. Who exactly are you refering to as an objecting party. If its the Russians and the Chinese, they're the last people in the world we should be getting a lesson on good government from.

Yes because starting bad blood with China and Russia is such a great idea for the West right now. It doesn't matter whether or not we like their policies or how they run their countries. What does matter is the reality of the circumstances of our standing with them and what it means to go against them in the long run. Sad but the cold truth.

Arab League welcomes US support. OF COURSE THEY WILL. And NO ITS NOT ALL BECAUSE THEY CARE ABOUT SYRIA. But will they TRULY support full on US military intervention? I don't think so. IF THEY DO - as US citizen you should be concerned WHY. Arab League usually does not have best interest of US in mind. 

And are we not going in because we respect the Syrian government. OF COURSE NOT. But do we respect that they have a system of government and they are a country of their own. OF COURSE WE SHOULD.

How is it self rightous to help Syria in this instance? The people inside Syria want it, the countries surrounding Syria would welcome it? Morally, it's rather hard to say it's "right" to let Assad do what he's doing. What is nessecarily self rightous about this? Would it have been self rightious for the west to intervene in Rwanda?

Breaking national sovereignty was the problem we had with Rwanda and the same problem with with Syria. That's why for either case it didn't matter whether or not how much they needed US help. YES it would have been AMAZING, downright FANTASTIC if we went in then and go in now.

BUT it sets a POOR precedent of: Anytime there's trouble in other countries, a country should step right in and solve it for them. 

That's the debate THAT ALWAYS HAPPENS. We can do days of argument for either side and we will still not have convincing enough answer to put down those who will use the precedent for corrupt means. It's the whole reason US left the UN for better or worse outcome and for better or worse motives. There are hungry countries out there who are just itching to break sovereignty and say "Hey the almighty-US did it. We were just trying to help too." 

If you think you have such a phenomenal argument that you can convince everyone - please share your immense knowledge for the world. If you think you can solve the problem that the best philosophers in the world are still debating over - please help them out. 

I studied under one of the world leaders in philosophy for human rights. I will give you his email if you can provide me such an argument. I'm sure he and you can make great use of it and help the world out.

And yes. Bad people does ruin things for the good people trying to do good.

 

And who are they then?

Russia and China. 

Furthermore, if we bring in military now to drive out Assad it might be driving out Saddam all over again. The battle would be messy since the location is urban and enemies are unclear and there's no clear leader to take over which will lead to another chaotic state that US will have to sit through. 

It's all possible that we could start a whole new civil war. Or hell, who knows maybe other countries will see it as free meat and just jump in it.

The world of politics and military are held together by volatile and yet fragile threads.

Anytime another country meddles in other countries affairs it gets messy. Anytime military gets involved - it's usually messy.

It's tough to sit by and watch the tragedy unfold. Blame the selfish people who didn't get spanked enough growing up but ended up becoming world leaders. Our world doesn't run on logic and good will. Sometimes by chasing after immediate gratification can lead to more grievous circumstances. 

So yea, it'd be GREAT if US can just not give a damn and go into Syria. I'd be all for that if we are willing to cover all the consequences and still come out on top for us and for them.

[Simon Allan]

There are gonna be reasons for why intervention is necessary in Syria and why it's be a bad idea to intervene. 

One of the arguments against intervention is that Syria is geographically different from the most recent area of intervention, Libya. Syria has a population around 23 million as oppose to 6.3 million in Libya, and is a much smaller country by comparison (185,180 square km for Syria and 1,759,540 for Libya) 

On top of this Gaddaffi never really had control over the eastern and more Southern parts of Libya. The size and population density on top of the clear east-west divisions between the National Transitional Council and Gaddaffi Loyalists made it easier to impose a no fly zone over the country and to minimize civilian/rebel casualties whilst maintaining clear and decisive military superiority over Gaddaffi ground forces which ultimately allowed the toppling of his government. 

As oppose to Syria, a no fly zone and attack of military convoys/installations would be very difficult to carry out, not necessarily because of NATO fighting against a more technologically advanced military (in comparison to Libya) and a massive chemical manufacturing warehouse but more because of a higher urbanised population (66%) and a greater population density than Libya (111 in Syria vs just 3 in Libya...3!!) making an effective no fly zone where air strikes take out military installations whilst leaving civilians and houses unharmed kinda impossible. The only way for an effective intervention would either be with the use of smart bombs from UAVs which cost in official jargon talk a complete f*ck-ton of money, or the other solution would be to put boots on the ground and then we'd have another problem of that not only being an unpopular decision, but would also escalate casualties of NATO troops (even more unpopular) and lead us into an "invisible war" like the War on Terror...and as the IRA and the Taliban have shown, they often last long swades of time and there isn't always a winner, because we don't know who the rebels are - a lot of them are militia or people who've managed to acquire guns and anti-tank missiles, not a fully organised fighting force or even a politically recognisable one. 

Another issue would be annoying Russia, which through cold war ties or having the only sea port it has based in Syria or  whatever reason blocks any intervention in Syria. And you don't want to make the Russians angry...

But the alternatives aren't fantastic either - we don't know much about the pro-democracy forces, they're poorly organised and don't have an official representative body or coalition like the National Transitional Council of Libya to even recognise, and arming the rebels could result in a sectarian conflict as seen in Afghanistan (1979-present day intervention) and as was seen in Iraq. Economic sanctions have driven the Syrian economy to it's knees running a debt of over 25% it's GDP, but so far it hasn't slowed the conflict with Syria receiving continued support from Iran and Russia. 

So practically and tactically it's difficult, and the cynic in me  cynic that is me says that intervention in Libya only happened because it has oil. 

Then again, the Syrian regime is willing to butcher it's population for the sake of democracy, and there is he risk of rebels becoming increasingly more radicalised, the use of air forces by the regime wouldn't stop a no fly zone in it's tracks, although the rebels in Libya were only as successful as they were under the cover of NATO strikes against his ground forces, not the air force, and without that kind of intervention, the war looks set to go on for years with countless dead. 

I think that intervention is needed, no one likes seeing civilians butchered and killed to death for the sake of wanting a voice but the geopolitics of the country makes it hard to do, impossible in fact - and I think the only solution to the conflict would be either a coup in the Assad regime, or if he resigned (won't happen...again, more complex) or Arab intervention for the pro-democracy movements, or further economic sanctions against them (although currently they have been ineffective) 

I personally, however, think that it isn't such a black and white issue as intervention is good or bad - either path will ultimately have unforeseen consequences and it's a much more complicated issue than intervention is good or bad, the concerns of interventionists are valid but then again, the ones who don't want to get involved have some legitimate points and it's unfair to dismiss those.

[Maryam]

I'm slightly confused by the phrase " if we leave well enough alone, the people of Syria are more likely to fall under the influence of Islamists", are you implying that the protesters or the pro-government group being the Islamists here? Since it can go both ways and any side can win...

 

I'm guessing you mean the pro-government people since they're the ones you oppose. If so, allow me to correct this, Islamists are the ones having the uprise, they're the anti-government/ pro-democracy ones (which ironically goes against their beliefs as one of them states an obligation to obey the ruler- which is why they've been opposing Egypt's uprise and are now opposing Bahrain's- but I guess they're making an exception here since Bashar has been helping Hezbullah and has been showing connection to Iran, the 2 groups Islamists can't stand).

Therefore, in the case of any West's involvement, Islamists are the ones getting the better deal. On the other hand, with Syria left alone, both sides are just going to continue killing each other.

 

My point is, any military intervention at this point will not only drive Syria to a downfall, but would also be highly disadvantageous to the intervening country, pissing off other countries for nothing. Any external military involvement would be fruitlress, just leveling up the violence. The solution to this lies from within Syria itself, Bashar should listen to his nation and do the necessary changes, stepping down or not.

(I hope I made sense, it's over 3 AM, but that's an interesting subject to me, being Arab and all, so I had to put down my two cents xD)

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I'm guessing you mean the pro-government people since they're the ones you oppose.

No, I did in fact mean the rebels, since the government isn't Islamist. I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume I made a mistake, especially since I said "the kind of people who would..." implying it hasn't happened yet.

Therefore, in the case of any West's involvement, Islamists are the ones getting the better deal. On the other hand, with Syria left alone, both sides are just going to continue killing each other.

I disagree. The danger is if we leave things be, and the Islamists win, they will be able to claim victory, and thus the right to rule from that point on. However, if the west intervenes and the victory is by democratic means, it means that there is a better chance that is how the country will turn out.

My point is, any military intervention at this point will not only drive Syria to a downfall, but would also be highly disadvantageous to the intervening country, pissing off other countries for nothing

Considering that the Arab league supports western intervention, on what basis are you making that claim? The only countries who would really be upset are Russia and China.

Any external military involvement would be fruitlress, just leveling up the violence. The solution to this lies from within Syria itself, Bashar should listen to his nation and do the necessary changes, stepping down or not.

Do we really want the Islamists involved in the rebellion to claim a victory and start turning that place into a Sharia hell hole?