The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Risottia]

My point of that post is: you can't claim NATO as a "country";

I wasn't claiming that. Try reading my posts before quoting them and answering.

[Imperializt Russia]

How do you propose preventing attacks on all sides without shooting at literally everyone with a weapon?

I DON'T propose to enter Syria without shooting at literally everyone who's still carrying a weapon.

You would have to invade and pacify the entire country.

Yes.

Which is going to cost ludicrous amounts of money, lost equipment and lives.

It would save a shitload of civilian lives though.

No it wouldn't. You're adding more firepower to a tub of nitroglycerin.

If you accept you have to invade and pacify the country, you accept that you are going to have to physically intervene in the military actions of both sides. This will involve, naturally, fighting them.
You will probably have to fight both sides - there are certainly opposition factions who'd love to shoot at NATO forces for fun.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

My point of that post is: you can't claim NATO as a "country";

I wasn't claiming that. Try reading my posts before quoting them and answering.

Uhmm... I think I did. Either construct posts better or please don't associate one thing with another.

NATO as the organization is already represented, there is no doubt about that with the individual members having a voice in the UN. However, and this is important, the UN has a voice over what NATO does militarily when it comes to their own mandates over a crisis. If the UN does pass a mandate for military action, NATO has to respond in kind. So, that being said, it is perfectly valid what the other poster said, that sending NATO troops is possible.

Now, as for it being a good idea, it sucks as an idea. Same as your idea that we should send people to contain ALL violence.

[Risottia]

I wasn't claiming that. Try reading my posts before quoting them and answering.

Uhmm... I think I did. Either construct posts better or please don't associate one thing with another.

Then prove your claim and quote exactly the bit where I claimed NATO is a country.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Any NATO force sent will be unable to be given clear objectives or rules of engagement.

And why the fuck should NATO be involved? NATO isn't a member country of the UN.

You are speaking here as if it actually WAS a country.

Unless I was wrong, which I don't think, you could have constructed that sentence better to say what you meant and not what was represented.

[Risottia]

And why the fuck should NATO be involved? NATO isn't a member country of the UN.

You are speaking here as if it actually WAS a country.

I'm afraid your understanding of English syntax is rather shaky, then.

[Crogach]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/italy-italian-reporter-held-syria-free-20195599

A veteran war correspondent used to reporting from the front lines, Quirico had entered Syria from Lebanon on April 6 and disappeared three days later while traveling to the city of Homs in war-torn Syria. La Stampa said Piccinin had been kidnapped along with Quirico.

"I had tried to tell the story of the Syrian revolution but ... the revolution turned into something else," Quirico said.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Italian- ... 28953.html

"I was trying to tell the story of the Syrian revolution , but it may be that this revolution has betrayed me . It is no longer the secular revolution of Aleppo, has become something else".
...
Quirico , had entered Syria from the border with Lebanon to follow the revolt against Assad. According to a first reconstruction of Giampiero Massolo , director of DIS , the journalist was originally abducted by rebel jihadists.
...
apostolic nuncio in Damascus... : " Kidnappings are a silent plague that have been affecting hundreds of families for months. Syrians are terrified by these criminal acts that have multiple authors and purposes: from kidnaps for extortion carried out by gangs without loyalties on either side, to those with ethnic religious or political motivations. "

In recent months, several religious figures have been abducted and are still in the hands of the kidnappers : Msgr . Gregory Yohanna Ibrahim , Syrian Orthodox bishop, Msgr . Boulos al- Yazigi , Greek - Orthodox bishop, both kidnapped near the border with Turkey on April 22 , Fr . Michel Kayyal ( Armenian Catholic ) and Fr. Maher Mahfouz ( Greek - orthodox) , kidnapped in February, Fr . Paolo Dall'Oglio , an Italian Jesuit , who disappeared last July 30.

Coupled with the Maalula massacres perpetrated by jihadists against the local Christian population, I'd say this is proof more than enough that Syria - the PEOPLE of Syria, not one faction or the other - needs the UN to intervene with a peace-enforcing and nation-rebuilding mission. With some hundred thousands boots on the ground - and from the largest number of countries possible.

That's true, but the question is:

Who's going to do it?

Typically UN peacekeeping and nation-building efforts involve a big coalition, with the US putting in well over half the manpower. I honestly don't know if the American people have the stomach for another round of nation-building after Afghanistan and Iraq. The argument could be made that this wouldn't be all that much different from the Kosovo War (as far as our moral duty to intervene is concerned, and it's possible that we can keep UN casualties fairly low), but Afghanistan and Iraq have left a bad enough taste in a lot of people's mouths that they don't want to do it a third time.

How will we get other countries to join us?

Russia has significant reasons to want to leave Assad in power; Putin's been consistently going to bat for him in the UN Security Council since this whole mess started, and he hasn't let so much as an entirely toothless condemnation of the use of gas in the region through the Council. We'd need the cooperation of Russia and China both to get UN boots on the ground, and if Putin won't let the UN complain about Assad then how can we expect him to agree to topple Assad. Furthermore, several of our key allies (including the UK) don't have the political will to get into another war; this probably goes double for wars that we've specifically been leading them into. Parliament just told David Cameron that he can forget about putting troops in Syria anytime soon; I doubt that's going to change overnight.

How are the Syrian people going to take this?

The last time the UN/NATO decided to get involved in a civil war (the Kosovo War) there was outright ethnic cleansing coming from one faction of the conflict, while the other was comparatively respectful of the laws of war. Furthermore, a very large segment of the population was actively begging the UN to come in and get involved. The Syrian conflict is a lot more complicated, and I'm not sure if the Syrian people are going to be particularly happy with having large numbers of Western boots on the ground (especially after Iraq.)

Who are we going to hand the country over to when we leave?

That's a big question. We can't simply leave Syria as a UN protectorate forever, and right now I don't really know if there's a government that the majority of the Syrian people will accept that the Western world is also willing to shed blood to install. In one corner, we have Bashar al-Assad and company, whom not very many Syrians want to keep around (and who we're going in there to depose). In the other, we have a nebulous coalition of local militias, fundamentalist Muslim groups with ties to al-Qaeda, and who knows what else. Trying to build some sort of moderate secular democracy that can balance sectarian tensions and prevent the ascendancy of an extremist theocracy while remaining palatable to the Syrian people is going to be extraordinarily difficult if it's even possible.

[Farnhamia]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/italy-italian-reporter-held-syria-free-20195599




http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Italian- ... 28953.html



Coupled with the Maalula massacres perpetrated by jihadists against the local Christian population, I'd say this is proof more than enough that Syria - the PEOPLE of Syria, not one faction or the other - needs the UN to intervene with a peace-enforcing and nation-rebuilding mission. With some hundred thousands boots on the ground - and from the largest number of countries possible.

That's true, but the question is:

Who's going to do it?

Typically UN peacekeeping and nation-building efforts involve a big coalition, with the US putting in well over half the manpower. I honestly don't know if the American people have the stomach for another round of nation-building after Afghanistan and Iraq. The argument could be made that this wouldn't be all that much different from the Kosovo War (as far as our moral duty to intervene is concerned, and it's possible that we can keep UN casualties fairly low), but Afghanistan and Iraq have left a bad enough taste in a lot of people's mouths that they don't want to do it a third time.

How will we get other countries to join us?

Russia has significant reasons to want to leave Assad in power; Putin's been consistently going to bat for him in the UN Security Council since this whole mess started, and he hasn't let so much as an entirely toothless condemnation of the use of gas in the region through the Council. We'd need the cooperation of Russia and China both to get UN boots on the ground, and if Putin won't let the UN complain about Assad then how can we expect him to agree to topple Assad. Furthermore, several of our key allies (including the UK) don't have the political will to get into another war; this probably goes double for wars that we've specifically been leading them into. Parliament just told David Cameron that he can forget about putting troops in Syria anytime soon; I doubt that's going to change overnight.

How are the Syrian people going to take this?

The last time the UN/NATO decided to get involved in a civil war (the Kosovo War) there was outright ethnic cleansing coming from one faction of the conflict, while the other was comparatively respectful of the laws of war. Furthermore, a very large segment of the population was actively begging the UN to come in and get involved. The Syrian conflict is a lot more complicated, and I'm not sure if the Syrian people are going to be particularly happy with having large numbers of Western boots on the ground (especially after Iraq.)

Who are we going to hand the country over to when we leave?

That's a big question. We can't simply leave Syria as a UN protectorate forever, and right now I don't really know if there's a government that the majority of the Syrian people will accept that the Western world is also willing to shed blood to install. In one corner, we have Bashar al-Assad and company, whom not very many Syrians want to keep around (and who we're going in there to depose). In the other, we have a nebulous coalition of local militias, fundamentalist Muslim groups with ties to al-Qaeda, and who knows what else. Trying to build some sort of moderate secular democracy that can balance sectarian tensions and prevent the ascendancy of an extremist theocracy while remaining palatable to the Syrian people is going to be extraordinarily difficult if it's even possible.

Very thoughtful. What would you suggest? Right now, the White House has agreed to UN talks on the disposal of Syria's chemical arsenal (the one they just found under a tarp somewhere in a basement in Tadmor). The Russians are behind that as well and even a number of people in the Syrian government.

[United Dependencies]

You know, I find it comforting that progress is being made towards solving this crisis by implementing the ASB-Shofercia Plan. I look forward to seeing you all in Oslo next year when Shofercia and I receive our shared Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm sure this will go great with your recognition for discovering the wingnut singularity.

[Imperializt Russia]

Very thoughtful. What would you suggest? Right now, the White House has agreed to UN talks on the disposal of Syria's chemical arsenal (the one they just found under a tarp somewhere in a basement in Tadmor). The Russians are behind that as well and even a number of people in the Syrian government.

I'm not understanding the inference of the tarp statement.

[Farnhamia]

Very thoughtful. What would you suggest? Right now, the White House has agreed to UN talks on the disposal of Syria's chemical arsenal (the one they just found under a tarp somewhere in a basement in Tadmor). The Russians are behind that as well and even a number of people in the Syrian government.

I'm not understanding the inference of the tarp statement.

An obviously unfunny jibe at the continual claims of Syria not using chemical weapons or even having them.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not understanding the inference of the tarp statement.

An obviously unfunny jibe at the continual claims of Syria not using chemical weapons or even having them.

Ah, right.

I figured that's what you were going for, for a minute I thought there had been some claims that some faction had actually found weapons under a tarp.

[Farnhamia]

An obviously unfunny jibe at the continual claims of Syria not using chemical weapons or even having them.

Ah, right.

I figured that's what you were going for, for a minute I thought there had been some claims that some faction had actually found weapons under a tarp.

The news moves so fast these days, it could happen.

[Alien Space Bats]

I'm sure this will go great with your recognition for discovering the wingnut singularity.

Sadly, there is no Nobel Prize for Political Science. It's a shame, really — because Stockholm is ever nicer than Oslo.

[United Dependencies]

Judging by the comment section of my local news outlet,

the new narrative on the right is that the president has failed us all by allowing the Russians to have any part in this action. Apparently it means that the president is handing over our world power status to the Russians.

[Democratic Koyro]

Judging by the comment section of my local news outlet,

the new narrative on the right is that the president has failed us all by allowing the Russians to have any part in this action. Apparently it means that the president is handing over our world power status to the Russians.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, ay?

[Alien Space Bats]

Judging by the comment section of my local news outlet,

the new narrative on the right is that the president has failed us all by allowing the Russians to have any part in this action. Apparently it means that the president is handing over our world power status to the Russians.

This same right thinks (in retrospect) that Nixon's trips to China and Russia were a Chamberlinian sell-out.

[United Dependencies]

Judging by the comment section of my local news outlet,

the new narrative on the right is that the president has failed us all by allowing the Russians to have any part in this action. Apparently it means that the president is handing over our world power status to the Russians.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, ay?

For the Republicans?

Always

[United Dependencies]

Judging by the comment section of my local news outlet,

the new narrative on the right is that the president has failed us all by allowing the Russians to have any part in this action. Apparently it means that the president is handing over our world power status to the Russians.

This same right thinks (in retrospect) that Nixon's trips to China and Russia were a Chamberlinian sell-out.

If they want to disavow themselves of Nixon's foreign policy, that's their problem.

[Imperializt Russia]

Jesus Christ, Nixon was forty years ago.
Let it go, Republicans.

[New Chalcedon]

Technicalities are the soul of politics and of diplomacy.....insofar as those processes have souls.

True. After all, technically Iran is building nuclear power plants because they might run out of oil. Right.

Anyway, yeah, politics have no soul. One does get used to it and one finds it makes next to no difference.

Actually, I'd be building nuclear power plants if I were the Iranian leadership, too, for three reasons.

First, it's cleaner than oil-fueled power stations.
Second, it leaves more - much more - oil for export to generate much-needed foreign exchange. The startup costs are a bear, true, but nuclear fuel is the only thing they'll have to import on an ongoing basis, and that's much cheaper (by power generation capacity) than oil, leaving a large surplus.
Third, it gives Iranian science - and industries dependent upon applied sciences, such as materials engineering and the like - a big boost in terms of trained personnel.

Even ignoring the military applications, it's a damn good idea for Iran.

[Farnhamia]

True. After all, technically Iran is building nuclear power plants because they might run out of oil. Right.

Anyway, yeah, politics have no soul. One does get used to it and one finds it makes next to no difference.

Actually, I'd be building nuclear power plants if I were the Iranian leadership, too, for three reasons.

First, it's cleaner than oil-fueled power stations.
Second, it leaves more - much more - oil for export to generate much-needed foreign exchange. The startup costs are a bear, true, but nuclear fuel is the only thing they'll have to import on an ongoing basis, and that's much cheaper (by power generation capacity) than oil, leaving a large surplus.
Third, it gives Iranian science - and industries dependent upon applied sciences, such as materials engineering and the like - a big boost in terms of trained personnel.

Even ignoring the military applications, it's a damn good idea for Iran.

*fires her snarky-comment writers*

[Danhanjeedh]

http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-rebels-captives-632/

[Crogach]

That's true, but the question is:

Who's going to do it?

Typically UN peacekeeping and nation-building efforts involve a big coalition, with the US putting in well over half the manpower. I honestly don't know if the American people have the stomach for another round of nation-building after Afghanistan and Iraq. The argument could be made that this wouldn't be all that much different from the Kosovo War (as far as our moral duty to intervene is concerned, and it's possible that we can keep UN casualties fairly low), but Afghanistan and Iraq have left a bad enough taste in a lot of people's mouths that they don't want to do it a third time.

How will we get other countries to join us?

Russia has significant reasons to want to leave Assad in power; Putin's been consistently going to bat for him in the UN Security Council since this whole mess started, and he hasn't let so much as an entirely toothless condemnation of the use of gas in the region through the Council. We'd need the cooperation of Russia and China both to get UN boots on the ground, and if Putin won't let the UN complain about Assad then how can we expect him to agree to topple Assad. Furthermore, several of our key allies (including the UK) don't have the political will to get into another war; this probably goes double for wars that we've specifically been leading them into. Parliament just told David Cameron that he can forget about putting troops in Syria anytime soon; I doubt that's going to change overnight.

How are the Syrian people going to take this?

The last time the UN/NATO decided to get involved in a civil war (the Kosovo War) there was outright ethnic cleansing coming from one faction of the conflict, while the other was comparatively respectful of the laws of war. Furthermore, a very large segment of the population was actively begging the UN to come in and get involved. The Syrian conflict is a lot more complicated, and I'm not sure if the Syrian people are going to be particularly happy with having large numbers of Western boots on the ground (especially after Iraq.)

Who are we going to hand the country over to when we leave?

That's a big question. We can't simply leave Syria as a UN protectorate forever, and right now I don't really know if there's a government that the majority of the Syrian people will accept that the Western world is also willing to shed blood to install. In one corner, we have Bashar al-Assad and company, whom not very many Syrians want to keep around (and who we're going in there to depose). In the other, we have a nebulous coalition of local militias, fundamentalist Muslim groups with ties to al-Qaeda, and who knows what else. Trying to build some sort of moderate secular democracy that can balance sectarian tensions and prevent the ascendancy of an extremist theocracy while remaining palatable to the Syrian people is going to be extraordinarily difficult if it's even possible.

Very thoughtful. What would you suggest? Right now, the White House has agreed to UN talks on the disposal of Syria's chemical arsenal (the one they just found under a tarp somewhere in a basement in Tadmor). The Russians are behind that as well and even a number of people in the Syrian government.

I like that idea a great deal; I like it for two reasons. First of all, the fact that Russia actually agreed to this sends a fairly powerful message to Assad that Russia won't protect his government forever if they piss off the West (namely, us) beyond a certain threshold. That could force Assad to tone down the violence to a nonnegligible extent, which is important in the context of protecting civilians.

Also, if the deal goes through it lays the groundwork for some kind of international action against Syria if the current regime persists in its current pattern of generalized brutality; hopefully that won't be immediately necessary, but if it is then we're more likely to be able to go in without looking like Leeroy Jenkins. If the deal doesn't go through, or Assad launches another gas attack after having turned over "all" of his WMDs, then we're also more likely to be able to round up more support for an eventual intervention, and possibly even get Russia to back off of us during the process.

In the meantime, I'd suggest we step up humanitarian efforts in the region, including support for refugee camps, designation of Syrian civilians (especially ethnic and religious minorities such as Syrian Christians) as political refugees (which would enable them to claim political asylum here and in Europe), and intensified efforts to evacuate civilians from conflict zones where possible. I'd also be interested in gathering as much intel as possible on the various and sundry rebel groups in the region, possibly providing covert support to the Free Syrian Army, and continuing to consider the possibility of no-fly zones or covert action intended to tip the balance of the conflict in the direction of the FSA.

I would in general like the US to default to humanitarian actions, efforts to rally international support for for Syrian civilians, and maybe low-level covert actions in support of the FSA rather than unilateral military intervention.

[Alien Space Bats]

Even ignoring the military applications, it's a damn good idea for Iran.

<sidetrack>

It's actually more broadly useful than that:

Iran held 10.3% of the world's total proven oil reserves and that figures out to be about 137.6 billion barrels (2.188×1010 m3) of oil reserves at the end of 2009. Oil also is found in northern Iran and in the offshore waters of the Persian Gulf. Nevertheless, in 2005 Iran spent US$4 billion on gasoline imports, mainly because of contraband and inefficient domestic use that result from subsidies. Iran is one of the largest gasoline consumers in the world ranking second behind United States in consumption per car.

There is a growing recognition that prices must rise faster to curb consumption and ease the burden on the public finances. Cheap energy has encouraged wasteful consumption in Iran, and a brisk business in smuggling petrol into Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Demand has also been supported by rapid increases in car production in recent years. In the absence of imports, the car industry has developed strongly (albeit from a low base) with output reaching over 1m vehicles in fiscal year 2006/07 (March 21-March 20).

— Wikipedia Article on "Energy in Iran"

... and ...

Iran is in a constant battle to use its energy resources more effectively in the face of subsidization and the need for technological advances in energy exploration and production. Energy wastage in Iran amounts to six or seven billion dollars (2008). The energy consumption in the country is extraordinarily higher than international standards. Iran recycles 28 percent of its used oil and gas whereas the figure for certain countries stands at 60 percent. Iran paid $84 billion in subsidies for oil, gas and electricity in 2008. Iran is one of the most energy intensive countries of the world with per capita energy consumption 15 times that of Japan and 10 times that of European Union. Also due to huge energy subsidies, Iran is one of the most energy inefficient countries of the world, with the energy intensity three times higher than global average and 2.5 times the middle eastern average.

— Wikipedia Article on "Energy in Iran"

Iran suffers from having what we might call an "energy monoculture"; it's the Koch Brothers' dream come true, in which virtually all of the Nation's energy comes from oil or gas, making it critically vulnerable to changes in the price and availability of petrochemical products.



97% of Iran's energy needs come from oil and gas; this means that Iran cannot operate a free market in petrochemical products domestically without leaving its people and domestic industry horribly vulnerable to price shocks in a world where petrochemical prices are extremely volatile. Instead, it must insulate its people and internal economy from the global market with subsidies and price controls, and this has lead to an extremely inefficient domestic energy sector (as one would expect under such circumstances).

Iranians depend on oil and gas for literally everything, from transportation to cooking to lighting to home heating. Small fluctuations in the price of petrochemical products have the potential to savage the pocketbooks of Iranians, producing much opportunity for political instability in a nation that (however constrained its political discourse may be by the need for candidates and media to remain consistent with "Islamic principles") is (still) essentially a Democracy. It's fundamentally the same economic and political problem America faced back in the early 20th Century (and, to some extent, still faces) with regards to agriculture and food prices, when our currently crop subsidy policies were put into place.

From an energy efficiency point of view, Iran would be well served by moving most Iranian homes and businesses to some other power source (such as nuclear-generated electrical power) for most of their domestic energy needs (like cooking, lighting, and home heating [or at least two of these three]) as well as basic electrical power generation. This would then allow Iran to deregulate its petrochemical industry and start to bring domestic prices back into line with global prices.

Another problem is the availability of medical isotopes for nuclear medicine. Right now Iran has problems acquiring such isotopes, which makes the treatment of various diseases (such as prostate cancer) problematic; Iran would like to solve that problem by producing such isotopes domestically.

Israel has taken an extremely aggressive stance not only against the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, but against the establishment of any kind of domestic nuclear power generation capability by Iran and against giving Iran any access to nuclear medicine supplies. From the (strictly self-interested) standpoint of Israel, Iran's economic problems from having an inefficient energy sector and its public health problems from not being able to treat easily curable cancer cases aren't Israel's problems, but rather Iran's — and they're nothing that regime change (preferably, back to a restored Pahlavi Dynasty) wouldn't cure. Most American hard-liners tend to agree.

My (much more moderate) P.O.V. is that we ought to recognize Iran's legitimate economic and public health needs and facilitate them in a way that simultaneously undermines its ability to develop nuclear weapons (which, to be honest, would actually not be in Iran's best interest). Converting Iran's research reactors to newer designs that don't need fuel as highly enrichers as older designs do (we just did this across most of Latin America and in Mexico, as part of an effort to recover dangerous nuclear materials from south of our border and establish a "nuclear-free zone" across most of the Western Hemisphere) would be one such step; arranging for the sale of commercial reactor fuel from foreign sources with international guarantees that the fuel flow will not be interrupted by sanctions would be another.

But to get to this point we have to overcome the thinking of the hard-line right that the West should seek to aggressively undermine and overthrow every government it doesn't like anywhere in the world. Until we deal with our ridiculous embargo on Cuba, and take the same position towards that regime as we take towards our former enemies in Vietnam (with whom we now get along quite well), that's just not in the cards.

(Hear that Hillary? Put it in your playbook for '16: You could offer to make an opening to Cuba and drive a wedge between the [Rand] Paulbots and the [Ted] Cruzers once one or the other of them sews up the nomination three years down the road...)

</sidetrack>