If intervention is the chosen solution, what is the most suitable course of action in Syria?
by Riley Frost
The Arab Spring; one of the most inspiring and hard-hitting epochs in modern world history. At its dawning it was difficult to turn on a television or pick up a newspaper and not be confronted with the awesome sight of 200,000 saturating Tahrir Square in Cairo or the brutal images of protester after protester bloodied having fought tenaciously with those they deemed to be their oppressors or the image of yet another despot smouldering. It is 32 months since catalyst Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immunisation in Tunisia; still the fire burns, his legacy burns on. During this time the West has had little reason for intervention; despite America and its school-yard friends holding the self-appointed position of World Police, it has never been in Western interest to attempt to influence any conflict; many would concur that in most cases the outbreaks have been justified, totalitarianism snapping under the weight of its own people. Yet now the West as an entity finds itself in a precarious position, would it be rational to come to the aid of a country where liberation has descended into civil war? The situation is particular; the tyrant in this case has held his ground and many see him on the winning side of a merciless scrimmage. With this decision seeming to have already been made, how should we go about taking on the Assad regime?
In August 2012, exactly 12 months ago, Barack Obama issued the following statement:
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, that would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Of course many would agree that this in itself is somewhat clear, any sign of the mobilisation of chemical weapons and America will see that as a viable reason for direct action. The debate as to why Obama would have issued such a loose statement regarding the conflict is a whole other argument in itself but focusing on the simple fact that the red line set by the States has been crossed, action will undoubtedly take place. Why? Mainly vis-a-vis Iran, America needs to show strength against a country where anti-American chants are often bellowed by politicians in its own national parliament and as much as we hate it, Iran is a lot stronger than many will be aware of. A highly patriotic population in combination with an advanced, well managed nuclear program provides the West with -in a nutshell- a headache and not much else.
An entity going to war without knowing quite what it wants to achieve could prove to be more dangerous than many have acknowledged in the past few weeks. Despite Obama stating that no decisions have been formally made, the evidence points strongly to intervention. If so, most crucially, any intervention must be with a beginning, middle and an end as without this, the West could be left wandering around aimlessly like a lost sheep in a part of the world where famished wolves lurk menacingly. It is apparent that the best way to approach such a situation is not with the gargantuan might that was seen in Afghanistan and Iraq but with tact and patience, something often the coalition lacks. Of course time is of the essence and lives are at risk but a lack of the aforementioned qualities could put further civilians in the line of fire. We must make an attempt to tilt power in the favour of the rebels, in particular on the southern front as that appears to be where gains could be most crucial and concentrate efforts on the capturing of major cities. Over the past few months, these forces have made various significant breakthroughs that with Western support could become pivotal: a key example being FSA forces gaining control of the Aleppo suburb of Khan Al-Assal, important as it controls one of the major routes in and out of the city. Without question Aleppo and Demascus are crucial and their acquisition must be at the top of any Western agenda yet the capturing of military positions must remain of equal importance. Demascus in particular has been somewhat of stumbling block for rebel forces with conflict only really taking place in the suburbs, a significant military presence has made breaking these lines near impossible; any gains here could influence the tilt Western forces need. Furthermore, political infrastructure must be attacked from the air to disjoint national army forces and buy time for further advances. In addition to this it is a given that the Assad family must be targeted as their influence is crucial, not only in a directional but also motivational capacity for national combatants.
It is only once rebels have control of major strongholds, the Assad family are dead and chemical weapons stores are destroyed that Western entities can throw full weight behind the rebels; any other form of intervention will show coalition forces as invaders rather than liberators, not only damaging an already disjointed global reputation but risking angering rebel forces themselves. All in all, it must be said that any intervention is a careful one, for Obama is walking a flaming tightrope and many in the East are praying for a fall.
Further reading/points of interest:
- http://wrenfoewisdom.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/cameron-out-sources-syrian-conflict-to-al-qaeda/
- http://freethinkeruk.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/can-you-help-me-here-mr-cameron/
- http://awkalmarzouq.com/2013/08/28/if-you-think-im-joking-about-the-planned-wars-then-read-this-1871-prediction/
- http://kelpnon.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/best-case-scenario-for-syria/
Hi Riley. Interesting article and thanks for your comment. What you should know is that originally the USA and UK etc wanted to keep this war going for as long as possible. The reason being to try and weaken Iran as it would have to put ever more resouces into Syria. To do this they have been helping the FSA, not enough to enable them to win but just enough to allow them to hold ground. However they have seriously miscalculated, Iran is turning out to be much stronger than they anticipated and with Russia working closely with Iran they are making a formidable force that is pretty much impossible to stop. If the USA and UK had given serious help at the start of the revolution the situation would have been different but now they have no chance of changing anything.
Hi Russell,
I can see where you’re coming from. The support we’ve already offered is something I touched upon in my post prior to this that may be of interest to you. In thorough agreement about the miscalculation, I fear that in 20 years time, the ‘West’ may be more than obsolete.
Riley,
There is no military solution. Peace talks are the only solution. War and killing does not equal peace and brotherhood.
Thank you,
Jerry
To be honest Jerry, I don’t want an intervention. I say that loosely but I don’t. Obama seems set so I thought it would be best to discuss how would be the most tactful way to go about it.
Thanks for the response.
Totally agree with you there Jerry “Peacemaker”. But what are the answers? Sanctions? It will only be the people of Syria that will suffer, as if they aren’t suffering enough now.
I believe whatever action has to be taken has to be taken with the full UN Security council behind the motion.
To read that the Russians are sending warships to the Med.. is scarey.. where will the stand-off end… what with us sending Typhoons to Cyprus.
It is only going to take one twitchy finger before we find ourselves in full scale military war.
What is happening over Syria is serious and I believe that the UK Government are just being bolshy and Cameron is acting like a bloody warmonger. Thank god Labour put the brakes on.
Bren,
Nice to meet you. To use a simple analogy, in families when one member speaks harmful words to another this is evidence of absence of love. Now love is not something physical, we cannot hold it in our hands and touch it. But as any person knows, love is real. As Emerson said: “The power of love, as the basis of states, has never been tried… There will always be a government of force where men are selfish..” War and killing is the most extreme form of business strategy-in this situation the business is natural gas, I believe. Natural gas business competition is essentially what this is about. There are probably other lesser factors which are part of the equation as well.
Missing from all of the millions of posts, articles, discussions, conversations by the water cooler etc. is any mention of love, peace and brotherhood as the solution. When the family members find and accept love in their hearts, any hurtful words or hurtful actions cease. With love in the hearts of all who participate in dialogue designed to lessen and end violence, there is no way to fail to bring about more loving, peaceful conditions. First though the people of the world must use the words love, peace and brotherhood in all their discussions or writings about Syria. It sounds like “seeing the world through rose-colored glasses” or “Utopian” or “impracticable” because it has not been given any consideration. What I say is that it is time for humanity to consider, speak about, and act in the most loving way humanly possible. There is no debate on the logic of what I just stated.
Thank you,
Jerry
Hi Jerry “Peacemaker”, very pleased to meet you and your analogy is lovely and in the perfect world it would work.. But unfortunately we also have to face reality that we don’t live in the perfect world and the mindset of some of the religious sects and the above all the mindset of the likes of the Taliban and Sharia Law .
When women’s rights are violated, which they are by certain religious groups, and women are stoned for being raped then our ideology is not even on the same wave lengths.
When women are denied the right to an education and a schoolgirl is shot in the head because she wants women and female children to have an education.. we have to accept that there are fundamental flaws in their thinking in our eyes. We wouldn’t dream of denying females the right to a decent education and we would not imprison a woman who has been raped.
The West has got to realise that they have different values and a totally different way of life… we are trying to instill our democracy and our values onto these nations and tell them they can no longer live how they have lived.for many centuries
Unfortunately it is only going to be the people of their own nations that can enforce change .. not the politicians from the West.
We have recently seen in Egypt, how they voted in a democratic way and voted in a Government only for the military to oust that Government. That unfortunately is not democracy and when people who have never been given a voice and they are given it for the first time they can’t understand the full concept of a democratic society especially if they have lived by the rule of a regime.
And all the problems in the Middle East are because of OIL.. The west sits back and allows tribes in Africa to massacre villages, they allow atrocities that maim and kill women and children and they do nothing and they have no intention of doing anything.
All the West does in these situations is hand more aid to corrupt governments who we find don’t spend it on the people and giving the people a better life but spend it on everything else including weapons.
I think the only solution will be when the West finally get to grips with their foreign policy and undo some of the harm they have created.
Today on the News, there is condemnation because Syria is saying it will defend itself… but wouldn’t we if another country threatened to drop cruise missiles on us because of our government policies and the way the people are treated by Conservative rule?
There are two sides to every argument but unfortunately our Government doesn’t want to listen.. they initially were not even prepared to wait for the UN Weapon Experts report.
Such as sad world we live in today.
I have posted your blogpost on http://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/if-intervention-is-the-chosen-solution-what-is-the-most-suitable-course-of-action-in-syria-by-riley-frost/
Riley / Russell,
Perhaps the best option would be for representatives from Syria, Iran, Russia, USA, UK, France to sit at the table and negotiate a peace agreement where natural gas contracts are written that are as fair as humanly possible to all parties. The vision of striving to hammer out agreements which result in the most positive consequences for the most people needs to be held by all parties. The talks must be conducted with the health and well-being of humanity at the forefront of every person’s thinking and reasoning. War and killing for control of, natural gas in this instance, resources is a spiritually bankrupt way of doing business and people must begin saying it, because it is true.
Thank you,
Jerry
I share your ideals, but I’m pessimistic that this could ever happen. Al-Assad is desperate, and he’s committed far too many atrocities for the rebels to accept a negotiated peace with him and his regime. Violence – quick, effective, violence – is likely the solution in this case.
Kelpnon,
Nice to meet you. We share ideals which are the essence of life on this Earth. It is up to each person to determine their thoughts, words and actions. I have chosen, based upon my personal spiritual beliefs, to advocate for love, brotherhood and peace in all human interactions. I have rejected any thoughts like “you can’t change the world” or “that’s just the way it is” or “there is nothing little you can do to make a difference”. All of the great progressions of humanity through history have started in the minds of men and women. At this moment in human history the world can choose to embrace love, brotherhood and oneness going forward. The arguments for humanity to accept this philosophy are overwhelming and beyond debate. All that is needed are people who understand the benefits of such a viewpoint to advocate and speak for the outstanding consequences of choosing that path.
So it is up to each individual, and the collective of humanity, to choose between the continuance of the violent ways of operating on this planet or an entirely new way, through love for our fellow men and women.
Thank you,
Jerry
Another excellent post, thank you! I’m still personally on the fence about intervening. I still remember watching the news when cruise missiles hit Iraq in 2002. My entire adult life has been spent following war.
While I’m war weary, I think the wrong lesson to learn from Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) is that the United States should never involve itself militarily abroad. The right lesson is that it (really, we) should do so with clear goals that the international community understands; that it should do so confident that it can achieve those goals; that it should do so with the support of the international community.
I think you’re quite right to point out that it’s not clear what our goals would be, or that the type of military involvement most of us are imagining (i.e., airstrikes and cruise missiles – maybe drones?) would allow us to achieve any hypothetical goals.
Finally, I think you’re quite right that there is no real victory to be had here. There is a lot to lose, especially with Iran (though perhaps President Rouhani will be more moderate?), and little to gain.
Bren,
Thank you for your frank reply.
The mindset of the likes of the Taliban and sharia would be changed by killing those who hold that mindset, or would that mindset be changed with expressions of friendship and brotherhood? Take route A and that mindset would surely be changed, it would be destroyed in the killing of those who hold it. Choose route B, friendship and brotherhood, and there is a chance that mindsets would change, without requiring killing.
I agree with your frustration on women’s rights issues. Now what is the best route to take to help women in these situations? Does humanity come to kill all those who hold the views which hold women down, or continue to speak out forcefully for women’s rights?
With the situation in Egypt, what steps can humanity agree on? Should there be a wholesale slaughter of either one side or the other, each representing roughly half of the Egyptian population, or would stressing to the Egyptian people that friendship and brotherhood should be the goal of any and all efforts to resolve the deep seated problems they face in that country?
You correctly identified the Middle East issue of oil (as well as other energy resources like natural gas). How does humanity most effectively address the problems associated with business entities competing for those resources? Does humanity continue with business as usual, using war and killing as the ultimate business strategy to control resources and markets, or advocating for fairness in business dealings where all people in resource rich regions will be able to live lives of peace, without having to experience the horrendous suffering from the consequences of a spiritually, morally, ethically bankrupt business strategy of war and killing?
This is a very good discussion where people are willing to delve into potentials and possibilities.
Every article, post and communication on these issues does an excellent job of identifying problems. For hundreds of years humanity has done an excellent job of identifying problems, ever since the printing press was invented. In August 2013 humanity must shift the millions of discussions away from the identifying of problems, to solutions of those problems.
Discussions must include the ONLY solution available to the human race for eliminating war and killing: love, brotherhood, oneness and peace.
Thank you,
Jerry
Thanks I’m going to link it at seasidepostonline.com
In each and every phase through the Syrian struggle we called for something different. A no-fly zone, arming the rebels, humanitarian passages…etc. We called for many options before that would put a line to the massive killings, or at least bring relief to areas besieged and prevented from getting food and medications. I don’t believe that they will support the rebels, they don’t want a strong force to fight back their dictations. We even reached to the realization that they do prefer Assad over an unknown future, well a weak Assad. What has been changed? The recklessness of Assad in using CW? CW were used many time before on rebels in limited areas. I believe Obama was trying to avoid it. All the massacres done by the regime before in %100 natural weapons were not even recognize, and there was always blurred statements like: “We don’t know who did it!”
One of the options is that they will hinder its ability to use mass destruction weapons and force him to go to Geneva II. But I don’t think Assad is willing to do that, most probably he lost it.
we are facing a number of options and no one is good for us. All what we want now is to stop the massive killing of civilians.