Despite Syria already being a humanitarian disaster for over a year, conflicting reports have indicated that Assad's regime has now resorted to using its chemical weapons. This is especially significant as Obama has set this as a threshold for military intervention. McCain and Graham are demanding intervention and using this as leverage.

 

Though the optics are horrifying, others have pushed back that Assad can't do more damage with them than he's already been doing, making the question even more difficult. If the situation has been a catastrophe for so long, why has intervention waited until it reached an arbitrary threshold? Is this good policy?

 

A further difficulty arises when the countries immediately affected by the disaster appear reluctant to partner with or support a US intervention. It would be not only more burdensome for the US to "go it alone" but would also strain already difficult relations in the region.

 

So, how should the US handle the Syrian issue?

Edited April 29, 201313 yr by Habib

Our track record on 'nation building' has shown to have been costly in US and other nations lives. And, as the ongoing large scale violence in Iraq shows, its long term success is doubtful.

 

Assad was dictator. But most stable governments in the region were. His backing comes from (or came from) Russia. Many other nations assets are involved - Iran, others - in this fight. Without massive forces the ability to control the situation would not be there and it may mean a proxy war with other nations.

 

Eventually someone is go to kill Assad and his top leaders. But then a new phase of this civil war will start. There just just is not much upside to the US going solo and being the hero here. People are not ready for a new wave of body bags coming home from a country where we really have no national vital interest. IMHO.

There just just is not much upside to the US going solo and being the hero here. People are not ready for a new wave of body bags coming home from a country where we really have no national vital interest. IMHO.

 

Agreed here. But, it seems most of the debate around intervention has stopped short of sending in troops or waging an occupation, which is a good thing.

 

There are already reports that the US is doing very limited training of rebels in Jordan, but the loudest opinions seem to want the US to begin arming the rebels in Syria. With chemical weapons being introduced, I imagine a no-fly zone will likely be the next intervention being advocated. Both of those options could be accomplished with limited US casualties, and would likely lead to a quicker collapse of the Assad regime. But, the politics of the thing are the most pernicious. Do we want to choose a side? Do we want to step aside during a humanitarian disaster? Can and should the US build a regional coalition before doing any of these things?

Why do we (the US) feel the need to continuously meddle in the problems of others? Let them blow each other up.

I believe it is time for a new policy statement for the US. Basically, the US will not be the world's policeman. Any intervention must be a joint effort with other nations committing resources. I believe this should be our foreign policy position going forward. The old "US interests" position is no longer valid. As the US moves closer to energy independence, there are no vital US interests (oil) that should cause us to intervene.

Over 70,000 deaths so far by Assad, if this was another country in the past we would have already been there by now. The U.S. drew a line inthe sand, now do something, or others will see the idle threat and whatever we say will be laughed at n the future as we will be seen as having no back bone.

The failure before Iraq was that the United Nations and its members, especially Germany, France and Russia and others whom we considered allies had too many ties and interests in Iraq to stay solid with demands that Sadaam adhere to demands to allow full inspections for WMD. Sadaam counted on this split in unity, and took the chance that the US (and UK) would not go it without full UN support and GW called his bluff. IMO had the UN been fully together on this, the war could have been avoided altogether.

 

I hope we do not make the same mistake again. We need to pressure the UN and its member nations to take a decisive and unified position on this first or at least expose the other members for what they are....countries that want to do nothing, risk nothing and sit back and blame.

The President saying don't cross that line, Assad crossing it, and us doing nothing bothers me on two fronts.

 

Our respect is dwindling in the world as a Superpower. We are being viewed as weak and unwilling to do what we say.

 

President Obama should have NEVER drew a line in the sand if he wasn't going to back it up. Period.

 

 

I am all for not doing anything at all. Do they have Nukes or are they of strategic advantage to us? No to both of those. Do we have significant interest in that country? No. The Middle East has been killing each other for 1,000's of years. let them do it some more.

But, the politics of the thing are the most pernicious. Do we want to choose a side? Do we want to step aside during a humanitarian disaster? Can and should the US build a regional coalition before doing any of these things?

 

IF the US were to do anything it should be under a coalition (NATO?) or the UN banner. Even under these banners the US usually ends being the lead. The UN should be at least having discussions of the situation and getting resolutions worked up. But have they? Seems even the vaunted UN is on the sidelines.

 

After Assad, and it seems only a matter of time that he fall, the likely function that fills the vacuum is the Muslim Brotherhood. Politically, that is problematic for the administration. With a lack of political upside for the administration they are not taking a lead here and probably will not since they do not want the be tagged as allowing further MB expansion.

 

It has been speculated, and granted it is unproven speculation, that Bengahzi was the base for weapons transfer from Libya to the Syrian 'rebels'. Again, if there is any credence to this the administration does not want that link brought out in the open. There has been covert support of the 'rebels' of some manner - that is all but for sure. Bringing focus to the conflict could expose that covert support and that also would be politically problematic.

 

So it drags on and the people of Syria are obviously suffering a real and terrible cost.

Why should we go support more extremist. We helped in Egypt, now they have 0 democracy. All that is going to happen is the Muslim Brotherhood take over and make it Egypt and look at what is happening to those Christians in that country.

 

Our policies dont work in those places, they want it to be stone age days, not 2013.

Why should we go support more extremist. We helped in Egypt, now they have 0 democracy. All that is going to happen is the Muslim Brotherhood take over and make it Egypt and look at what is happening to those Christians in that country.

 

Our policies dont work in those places, they want it to be stone age days, not 2013.

BUT, what people fail to see is that the Muslim Brotherhood now in charge in Egypt is now having trouble, one only has to pay attention to the news to see the demonstrations. The worse thing for the Muslim Brotherhood is they are now leading a nation, and their people see they have the same trouble as others. In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood is their own worse enemy here.

Why should we go support more extremist. We helped in Egypt, now they have 0 democracy. All that is going to happen is the Muslim Brotherhood take over and make it Egypt and look at what is happening to those Christians in that country.

 

Our policies dont work in those places, they want it to be stone age days, not 2013.

 

BUT, what people fail to see is that the Muslim Brotherhood now in charge in Egypt is now having trouble, one only has to pay attention to the news to see the demonstrations. The worse thing for the Muslim Brotherhood is they are now leading a nation, and their people see they have the same trouble as others. In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood is their own worse enemy here.

 

Why do we (the US) feel the need to continuously meddle in the problems of others? Let them blow each other up.

 

I believe it is time for a new policy statement for the US. Basically, the US will not be the world's policeman. Any intervention must be a joint effort with other nations committing resources. I believe this should be our foreign policy position going forward. The old "US interests" position is no longer valid. As the US moves closer to energy independence, there are no vital US interests (oil) that should cause us to intervene.

 

Well intentioned or not it really boils down to 1 thing. You can't help people that do not want to be helped. Some may within this regimes, and this is where the moral obligation comes in to play, but you cannot do it at the cost of damaging our own nation.

Edited April 29, 201313 yr by bugatti

The U.N. is a non-factor. They are a paper tiger that most of the world is ignoring.

A few complicating interests regarding an intervention:

 

• The US doesn’t have terribly much to gain in terms of resources or territorial position, but it does have a strong interest in the stability and future of the region. Al Qaeda was able to operate out of Afghanistan because there was no real government there. Ignoring the world as though what happens in it won’t affect us because there are no immediate interests at stake has proven myopic.
   
  
• Relatedly, fundamentalist Islamic groups have made up and increasingly larger faction of the Syrian rebels. It’s suspected that these factions are receiving outside support from sympathetic governments or groups. Assuming the rebels eventually win out and Assad falls, which is the consensus expectation, these groups will have a larger say in the formation of a new Syria, which, again, will cause problems for the US and its allies in the area. Backing less fundamentalist rebels, if they can be accurately distinguished, could be a way of mitigating this.
  
• 
  
• There is the humanitarian aspect. There have been estimates placing the death toll above 70,000 people, with civilians making up the majority of those dead. This will go on until one side wins out. If claims of chemical weapons are true, that death count could grow even more rapidly. Supporting one side or another could bring about a swifter end to the deaths.
  
• 
  
• Again, relatedly, a UN-supported no-fly zone was enforced over Libya that prevented Qadaffi from using his air power for similar purposes. A no-fly zone over Syria could prevent Assad from deploying his chemical weapons and could tip the balance of power against him. However, China and Russia sat on the sideline to allow the UNSC to pass the no-fly zone resolution. They will not do that here.
  
• Intervening unilaterally or without international legitimation could also hurt US relations in the future, which could further complicate matters with relations in the region.
  

 

It's hard to close your eyes and plug your ears and expect it to all shake out for the best. But, it's equally hard to act as though military involvement is the perfect solution here. It's not an easy situation from any angle. At this point, I think any intervention has waited too long to change much. If chemical weapons turn out to be in use and they turn out to be as destructive as people imagine, then I think more pressure needs to be applied to Russia and China to go along with another no-fly zone. Simply arming the rebels might be the least involved and clandestine measure, but I'm not sure that's a wise idea either.

A few complicating interests regarding an intervention:

 

• The US doesn’t have terribly much to gain in terms of resources or territorial position, but it does have a strong interest in the stability and future of the region. Al Qaeda was able to operate out of Afghanistan because there was no real government there. Ignoring the world as though what happens in it won’t affect us because there are no immediate interests at stake has proven myopic.
   
  
• Relatedly, fundamentalist Islamic groups have made up and increasingly larger faction of the Syrian rebels. It’s suspected that these factions are receiving outside support from sympathetic governments or groups. Assuming the rebels eventually win out and Assad falls, which is the consensus expectation, these groups will have a larger say in the formation of a new Syria, which, again, will cause problems for the US and its allies in the area. Backing less fundamentalist rebels, if they can be accurately distinguished, could be a way of mitigating this.
  
• 
  
• There is the humanitarian aspect. There have been estimates placing the death toll above 70,000 people, with civilians making up the majority of those dead. This will go on until one side wins out. If claims of chemical weapons are true, that death count could grow even more rapidly. Supporting one side or another could bring about a swifter end to the deaths.
  
• 
  
• Again, relatedly, a UN-supported no-fly zone was enforced over Libya that prevented Qadaffi from using his air power for similar purposes. A no-fly zone over Syria could prevent Assad from deploying his chemical weapons and could tip the balance of power against him. However, China and Russia sat on the sideline to allow the UNSC to pass the no-fly zone resolution. They will not do that here.
  
• Intervening unilaterally or without international legitimation could also hurt US relations in the future, which could further complicate matters with relations in the region.
  

 

It's hard to close your eyes and plug your ears and expect it to all shake out for the best. But, it's equally hard to act as though military involvement is the perfect solution here. It's not an easy situation from any angle. At this point, I think any intervention has waited too long to change much. If chemical weapons turn out to be in use and they turn out to be as destructive as people imagine, then I think more pressure needs to be applied to Russia and China to go along with another no-fly zone. Simply arming the rebels might be the least involved and clandestine measure, but I'm not sure that's a wise idea either.

 

 

Reason #1 why you don't overthrow dictators? Unless the US puts a dictator loyal to them in, the vacuum is filled with something worse....