Syria is, as is well known by now, a pretty messed up place. According to the UN a whole crapload of protestors have been killed since the whole thing began. This is usually not considered a good thing, and things do not appear to be improving. Question is, should the west intervene? We all remember when we tried that with Iraq and how that turned out (re: not good. at all). But, Libya, a more recent case, seemed to turn out alright.

So, what do you think we (the west) should do about all this Syria business? Should we intervene and help the people, or just let them sort out their own problems? air superiority baby!

EDIT: And by the west, I don't mean just 'Merica. I mean Europe as well. You guys need to get off your sorry asses and do something for once! :)

Oh sure, why not?

Because our last few adventures in the Middle East were so quick, decisive, and comprehensively successful. And we've been out of Iraq for almost two whole months now! If we wait much longer the soldiers who've recently come home might actually start thinking they won't have to go back again! We can't have that!

I'm not sure, isn't Syria an ally? If yes i'd say keep your hands off.

I'm sure not doing any intervening, and whoever says he's doing any intervening on my behalf can stick it. Actually, anyone who says any intervening was going to be about "helping the Syrian people" can stick it too. It's never about that.

The big problem is that Syria does have quite a decent set of armed forces by Middle Eastern standards, certainly better than what Libya had. I think armed intervention rests largely in what America is willing to provide, i doubt Europe has the capability to intervene in a major one straight after Libya. European states owned around $200 million to the US for borrowing munitions used in Libya. Syria's a much more serious kettle of fish so we would be expending much more ammunition that we did in Libya, i question if European states can afford it given our dire economic situation.

I do think the international community is morally obliged to militarily intervene in Syria, it's just a shame that there seems to be no global actor that is either willing or capable to intervene there.

Intervene only if mandated by the UN and requested specifically by the Arab League. If those things don't happen... Well, not much we can do.

generals3:
I'm not sure, isn't Syria an ally? If yes i'd say keep your hands off.

The Syrian government is buddy-buddy with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. I don't think any western nation can regard Syria as an ally.

There won't be any military intervention any time soon with the Russian and Chinese governments proving themselves as sub-human scum.

I'm not sure at this point. The situation is highly complex, far more so than Libya was. Assad isnt crazy like Gadahfi was but in a way that makes him even more dangerous. Plus Russia has too much invested in Syria and they have already thrown in their lot with Assad.

At this point I'd rather see the Arabs and Turks form the core of any ground units acting as a peace-keeping force. If the US and/or NATO or whoever does get involved it would be best to just provide logistical and at the absolute most some air support if required. I still am not sure yet. The only thing I am sure of is that people are dying and they need help.

Vegosiux:
I'm sure not doing any intervening, and whoever says he's doing any intervening on my behalf can stick it. Actually, anyone who says any intervening was going to be about "helping the Syrian people" can stick it too. It's never about that.

.
The blokes that are fighting as the resistance army aren't really helping the people either as urban areas become battle grounds and people die in the crossfire.

Do nothing. Its not our business.

Plus, this isnt Libya. You cant just send in air support for the lolz. Theres a lot of shit going on there with loads of other nations involved.

Is the current situation in Libya a threat to my country's national security?

No?

In that case my country has no legal jurisdiction or moral obligation to intervene. This isn't Team America and the Western nations aren't World Police.

Quite frankly this mess is so screwed up the worst thing to do would be to jump to any conclusion. If China and Russia both remain firmly opposed so the U.N. can't do anything about it then there's surely nothing the U.S. can do without opening up a much more massive can of worms than just Syria.

This is very unfortunate for the Syrian people though. The Arab league really should be the ones who can take action for what's best for their region given their situation. But given from how little I've heard about them it doesn't sound like they have much real power to take firm action on something like this.

Elcarsh:

Blablahb:
I'd go for the option of military intervention with ground troops. Breaking the Syrian army to the point where Assad loses all control shouldn't be a protracted armed conflict.

Just like going in and quickly and painlessly breaking the Iraqi army, eh? That's not really how things work in reality.

That wasn't the US military's fault, or so I am led to believe. Apparently they were very keen to have a short sharp war and get out, but were fucked over by thother US agencies looking to their own interests and not giving them the support they promised.

The politicians vetoed the original plan, the FBI was supposed to do a lot more training of local police and didn't, lots of money conveniently disappeared etc.

Having said that, you could argue that that sort of thing is just another part of an US invasion.

Here are some key points I want to make:

1. Unless Russia and China agree to at least abstain no action is going to be taken on Syria by the UN Security Council

2. People in Syria are being killed by their own government, not just rebels but civilians as well. Back even when the protests were peaceful they were being killed. A scenario in which Assad holds onto power is a massive injustice and should be deemed unacceptable.

3. This isnt Libya, this is far more complex. Rather than having basically the entire population rise up against a crazy dictator you have a large part of the population rising up against a sane but cruel and calculating dictator who still enjoys support among a notable minority of the people.

4. The Syrian Army, though greatly weakened with recent desertions and from other factors, is still, on paper at least, one of the most powerful ground forces in the region. I am not convinced air strikes would be enough to level the playing field for the FSA. This combined with the fact that artillery and not aircraft are the primary threat to civilians in Syria right now makes a no-fly zone seem unhelpful.

Given all these points a preliminary recommendation (still not sure on how best to proceed so this just preliminary) is for the West to provide aid to the Syrian people in the form of food and medical care and what not and also to provide arms, intel, and perhaps training to the FSA. The main work though must be done by Turkey and the Arab nations, their task should be to form safe-zones for civilians in the north and south of the country so those caught between Assad's forces and the FSA can get out of the way and let the two sides go at it until Assad falls (letting Assad remain in power is unacceptable as he has lost all legitimacy).

The big question now is will the Turks and Arabs be willing to standup and take responsibility for a crisis in their own region? If not they are in trouble because the West has grown tired of intervening in the Middle East's problems.

Blablahb:
I'd go for the option of military intervention with ground troops. Breaking the Syrian army to the point where Assad loses all control shouldn't be a protracted armed conflict.

Ground troops wouldn't even be necessary for that to happen. NATO air power alone could break the back of their army. And NATO has had plenty of practice making entire armies combat ineffective from the air since Desert Storm. Ground troops would do a more thorough job, but air power is quicker.

LetalisK:

Blablahb:
I'd go for the option of military intervention with ground troops. Breaking the Syrian army to the point where Assad loses all control shouldn't be a protracted armed conflict.

Ground troops wouldn't even be necessary for that to happen. NATO air power alone could break the back of their army. And NATO has had plenty of practice making entire armies combat ineffective from the air since Desert Storm. Ground troops would do a more thorough job, but air power is quicker.

Combat ineffective is not the same as non existent. We can turn their army into a bunch of isolated nutcases with aks and they could still gun down protesters. The assumption that Syria is the same as Libya is almost as bad as the one that Iraq is the same as Afghanistan.

Stay out. Outside influences have only ever made the place worse.

Try to bring democracy and Western Ideals to the Middle East? Cause a rise in religious fundamentalists that destroyed the progress we made up to the 50's.

Try to prevent the spread of communism in the region? Place into power our own dictators.

Try to overthrow those dictators and try to give them democracy? Destablise the region and destroyed the one thing keeping the two major sects from killing each other.

Try to stop the sects from killing each other? Form deep rooted resistance movements that got stronger the harder we hit them.

It would be like giving a television to the guy that dropped it five times. He just wants to help (for some oil money) but would you trust him when you can still see the line of broken TV's?

Not G. Ivingname:
Stay out. Outside influences have only ever made the place worse.

Try to bring democracy and Western Ideals to the Middle East? Cause a rise in religious fundamentalists that destroyed the progress we made up to the 50's.

Try to prevent the spread of communism in the region? Place into power our own dictators.

Try to overthrow those dictators and try to give them democracy? Destablise the region and destroyed the one thing keeping the two major sects from killing each other.

Try to stop the sects from killing each other? Form deep rooted resistance movements that got stronger the harder we hit them.

It would be like giving a television to the guy that dropped it five times. He just wants to help (for some oil money) but would you trust him when you can still see the line of broken TV's?

So what the Arab world is supposed to live in a bubble because it doesn't play nice with others and others don't play nice with it? Foreign influences are going to creep in no matter what country we are talking about (except maybe Bhutan, Nauru, Mongolia, and a few other countries whose defense policy can be summed up as "if they don't know where we are on a map they can't invade us").

the clockmaker:

LetalisK:

Blablahb:
I'd go for the option of military intervention with ground troops. Breaking the Syrian army to the point where Assad loses all control shouldn't be a protracted armed conflict.

Ground troops wouldn't even be necessary for that to happen. NATO air power alone could break the back of their army. And NATO has had plenty of practice making entire armies combat ineffective from the air since Desert Storm. Ground troops would do a more thorough job, but air power is quicker.

Combat ineffective is not the same as non existent. We can turn their army into a bunch of isolated nutcases with aks and they could still gun down protesters. The assumption that Syria is the same as Libya is almost as bad as the one that Iraq is the same as Afghanistan.

Of course there will still be isolated nutcases running around with the capability of shooting at protestors. The point was it would cripple the military to the point where they could no longer organize sufficiently on a large scale against the protestors. Isolated nutcases is something the protestors would be better able to handle, if it even happened at all, particularly if things got really heated.

Seekster:

Not G. Ivingname:
Stay out. Outside influences have only ever made the place worse.

Try to bring democracy and Western Ideals to the Middle East? Cause a rise in religious fundamentalists that destroyed the progress we made up to the 50's.

Try to prevent the spread of communism in the region? Place into power our own dictators.

Try to overthrow those dictators and try to give them democracy? Destablise the region and destroyed the one thing keeping the two major sects from killing each other.

Try to stop the sects from killing each other? Form deep rooted resistance movements that got stronger the harder we hit them.

It would be like giving a television to the guy that dropped it five times. He just wants to help (for some oil money) but would you trust him when you can still see the line of broken TV's?

So what the Arab world is supposed to live in a bubble because it doesn't play nice with others and others don't play nice with it? Foreign influences are going to creep in no matter what country we are talking about (except maybe Bhutan, Nauru, Mongolia, and a few other countries whose defense policy can be summed up as "if they don't know where we are on a map they can't invade us").

I am just saying that our attempts at direct influence of the area have just made the situation worse. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. Let's try something different, for once.

Not G. Ivingname:

Seekster:

Not G. Ivingname:
Stay out. Outside influences have only ever made the place worse.

Try to bring democracy and Western Ideals to the Middle East? Cause a rise in religious fundamentalists that destroyed the progress we made up to the 50's.

Try to prevent the spread of communism in the region? Place into power our own dictators.

Try to overthrow those dictators and try to give them democracy? Destablise the region and destroyed the one thing keeping the two major sects from killing each other.

Try to stop the sects from killing each other? Form deep rooted resistance movements that got stronger the harder we hit them.

It would be like giving a television to the guy that dropped it five times. He just wants to help (for some oil money) but would you trust him when you can still see the line of broken TV's?

So what the Arab world is supposed to live in a bubble because it doesn't play nice with others and others don't play nice with it? Foreign influences are going to creep in no matter what country we are talking about (except maybe Bhutan, Nauru, Mongolia, and a few other countries whose defense policy can be summed up as "if they don't know where we are on a map they can't invade us").

I am just saying that our attempts at direct influence of the area have just made the situation worse. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. Let's try something different, for once.

Thats why we try to act in different ways but we do have to interact with the world.

Not G. Ivingname:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result

Some call it insanity, some call it science.

"I wonder if that happens every time."

LetalisK:

the clockmaker:

LetalisK:
Ground troops wouldn't even be necessary for that to happen. NATO air power alone could break the back of their army. And NATO has had plenty of practice making entire armies combat ineffective from the air since Desert Storm. Ground troops would do a more thorough job, but air power is quicker.

Combat ineffective is not the same as non existent. We can turn their army into a bunch of isolated nutcases with aks and they could still gun down protesters. The assumption that Syria is the same as Libya is almost as bad as the one that Iraq is the same as Afghanistan.

Of course there will still be isolated nutcases running around with the capability of shooting at protestors. The point was it would cripple the military to the point where they could no longer organize sufficiently on a large scale against the protestors. Isolated nutcases is something the protestors would be better able to handle, if it even happened at all, particularly if things got really heated.

The purpose of air power is to break an enemy into chunks for land forces to deal with. In Libya, there were native land forces capable of taking on the land forces of the government. In Syria, there is no such capable native force.

If we were to bomb the army back into the stone age, we would have nothing but a chaotic clusterfuck on the ground with no way of ending it. Firepower does not exist in a vacuum.

I spoke poorly when I said isolated nutcases, I was using it as an extreame, not as something that we could concievably do. What I should have said was 'if' we could reduce them to isolated nutcases. A far nore reasonable expectation would breaking down the command structure so that each region is acting independently. This is desirable in a war, because we can then use ground forces to mop up the disorganised and confused enemy. Now, there is no major ground resistence in Syria, the protesters are mostly unarmed, so if we break down the government's command structure, the only differance will be that there can be no order to stop.

what happens when we have panic units trying to hold down cities on their own, with no orders to follow? What happens when the people we want to kill and the people we want to save are meters from each other?

Air power cannot solve Syria anymore than it can solve the Sudan.

Zekksta:

Not G. Ivingname:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result

Some call it insanity, some call it science.

"I wonder if that happens every time."

By the sixth time you tried an experiment, each with different tests and methods to getting the result, you can reasonably say that YES, the same thing happens every time.

You can't say that objectively (nor can you really say that in science at all) but most people would take your results as fact for now.

Not G. Ivingname:

Zekksta:

Not G. Ivingname:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result

Some call it insanity, some call it science.

"I wonder if that happens every time."

By the sixth time you tried an experiment, each with different tests and methods to getting the result, you can reasonably say that YES, the same thing happens every time.

You can't say that objectively (nor can you really say that in science at all) but most people would take your results as fact for now.

Well at least you didn't read too much into a joke or anything like that.

Zekksta:

Not G. Ivingname:

Zekksta:

Some call it insanity, some call it science.

"I wonder if that happens every time."

By the sixth time you tried an experiment, each with different tests and methods to getting the result, you can reasonably say that YES, the same thing happens every time.

You can't say that objectively (nor can you really say that in science at all) but most people would take your results as fact for now.

Well at least you didn't read too much into a joke or anything like that.

Just an interesting thing to note. A few Iranian naval vessels (not the speedboats, a few of their real ships) actually went through the Suez Canal and docked in Syria as a show of support for Assad.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/02/20122197221461654.html

No.

It's a sad reality that we are all doomed to have our money stolen by the government, but it is downright insulting how much of that money they spend trying to help other countries instead of our own.

Vuljatar:
No.

It's a sad reality that we are all doomed to have our money stolen by the government, but it is downright insulting how much of that money they spend trying to help other countries instead of our own.

God forbid we help our fellow human beings...