Syria Superthread [merged]

[aesop081]

there is a UN framework there.

A UN framework that has failed to resolve the situation after how many years ? Is a current running UN mission somehow an advantage ?

and that we are pushing for certain roles on the international stage, .

We are certainly living up to those aspirations in other places. Further more, what would you have us intervene in Syria with ?

What I am wondering is: Why intervene so readily in Lybia but do nothing about Syria?

Our Crystal ball was working the same as yours when we commited to the Libya mission.

 

[Pieman]

Our Crystal ball was working the same as yours when we commited to the Libya mission.

Really? You have a Crystal ball? What about tarot cards? Try those instead.

The fact that the "ok, what now?" questions are popping up seems to indicate that the "Libya model of intervention" may not be a viable one in the future.  Of course, Iraq 1991-2003 could have told us that.

Good answer, thanks for that. I am a little surprised to see people posting about how going into Lybia was  a mistake. Came across to me as a mistake in the tactical sense, underestimating the Lybian forces to hold it together,
rather than stop intervening in situations like this all together. But perhaps it is a better tactic to let things take their course on their own, especially when things are made worse by our involvement.

 

[aesop081]

especially when things are made worse by our involvement.

Are you saying that things in Libya are worse as a result of international involvement ?

underestimating the Lybian forces to hold it together,

I don't believe that to be the case.

 

[Pieman]

Are you saying that things in Libya are worse as a result of international involvement ?

I don't know one way or another. If people are saying it is a mistake to have gone in there, doesn't that indicate a negative impact?

I don't believe that to be the case.

Then what is the case? Was NATO not expecting that as a result of our involvement in going into Lybia, that their leader Gaddafi would be overthrown? Were they not expecting this to happen quickly?

 

[aesop081]

doesn't that indicate a negative impact?

2 seperate issues. It was a mistake because the political bind it puts us in now, the "why here and not there" argument that will undoubtably be used to force us into another country. The impact on the ground has been far from negative.

Was NATO not expecting that as a result of our involvement in going into Lybia, that their leader Gaddafi would be overthrown? Were they not expecting this to happen quickly?

Indeed but that is not, IHMO, a factor of NATO underestimating the regime but a case of NATO overestimating its political resolve to see it to the end and do what is needed.

 

[Sig_Des]

A UN framework that has failed to resolve the situation after how many years ? Is a current running UN mission somehow an advantage ?

Considering that UNDOF's mandate is to supervise the ceasefire and monitor the buffer zone, I wouldn't say they failed to resolve the situation, as that was never the job.

I do see a current UN mission as an advantage. While I'm not advocating upscaling it to a Chapter VII mission and sweeping North through the country, the use of existing UNMO's to verify the claims of human rights abuse, as one of the tenets of the UN being the promotion of human security, could be a benefit to the passing of resolutions pushing for peace ops.

Sure, I'll admit that we can't depose the regime short of invading the country, and that we're overburdened with what we have on our plate, and even sending that observers would probably be as useful as pissing in the wind. However, I don't see the right in involving ourselves in Libya, straight up bombing the country, and then doing nothing but pushing sanctions in another region where we HAVE a history of trying to keep peace. Seeing as the vote above is whether you support foreign intervention in Syria, and doesn't specify what kind of intervention, in my personal opinion, I am open to some kind of intervention. What kind, I can't say for sure, but I'd like to see something.

 

[aesop081]

Considering that UNDOF's mandate is to supervise the ceasefire and monitor the buffer zone, I wouldn't say they failed to resolve the situation, as that was never the job.

That UNDOF is still required to monitor a ceasefire is the failure.

However, I don't see the right in involving ourselves in Libya, straight up bombing the country, and then doing nothing but pushing sanctions in another region where we HAVE a history of trying to keep peace.

We have a history in many places, should we feel the need to re-commit resources there if another crisis comes up ?

Should we involve ourselves everywhere from now on because we did in Libya ?

 

[57Chevy]

the "why here and not there" argument that will undoubtably be used to force us into another country.

That may well be the readily used argument phrase, but IMO, that alone won't be forcing anyone
into similar situations in other countries.

Even though non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and others are now reporting that the number of men, women and children killed, since the protests began in March, has exceeded 1,100, with up to 10,000 or more detained.

There is the requirement of fact finding missions initiated by the UN (HRC) of which the Syrian government
has not responded.

$1.2 billion Suncor/Petro Canada gas project. In 2009, official trade statistics recorded a total of $61.3 million in Canadian exports to Syria.

peanuts in comparison to the Russians

from the earlier article:
Darling said that in January 2005 the Kremlin forgave some 9.8 billion dollars of Damascus's 13.4-billion-dollar Soviet-era debt, thus paving the way for new arms agreements, many of which included upgrades to platforms already in Syrian service such as its MiG-21, - 23 and -29 squadrons.

Some of the more recent Russian sales to Syria include the 96K6 Pantsir-S1E (NATO designation: SA-19 Grison) self-propelled, short- range gun and missile air-defense system, the Buk-2M Ural (SA-17 Grizzly) medium-range theater-defence missile system, plus 10-20 new MiG-29SMT Fulcrum combat aircraft (signed in 2007), with another deal for four MiG-31Eh Foxhounds still under negotiation.

Russia is also reportedly creating a naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus, and possibly another at Latakia, he said.

China's military trade with Syria is not as voluminous as Russia's, said Darling, but it does provide Damascus with missiles and missile technology.

From 2002 through 2009, Russia signed 5.8 billion dollars worth of arms agreements with Syria, and with China worth 800 million dollars.
---
                                        ___________________________________

Another reason that I did not mention earlier is Iran and their supreme Idol.
from Express.co.uk
William Hague: Iran aiding Syria
Monday June 13 2011 by Alison Little
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/252396/William-Hague-Iran-aiding-SyriaWilliam-Hague-Iran-aiding-Syria#ixzz1P6wucLwZ

“The Syrian regime is undoubtedly being assisted by the Iranian government in many ways, both the provision of equipment for them and advice on techniques on how to crush protest,” Mr Hague said.

His comments came amid continuing reports of violence and threats by Syrian forces against protesters. Mr Hague said he was working to get backing for a UN resolution criticising Syria.

But he cautioned that the chances of a UN Security Council agreement were “on a knife edge”.

He went on: “It is an extraordinary example of hypocrisy that the Iranian government, which positioned itself on the side of protests in Egypt and Tunisia, is assisting the Syrian government in actively and brutally suppressing protest and that tells you a great deal about the regime in Iran.”

Thousands of Syrians have fled to the Turkish border to escape the violence and Britain is pledging humanitarian support at the border including shelter, medicine and food.
                                              _________________________
                                  Articles shared by provisions of The Copyright Act

 

[aesop081]

That may well be the readily used argument phrase, but IMO, that alone won't be forcing anyone
into similar situations in other countries.

It is the same "we must do something" argument that put enough public pressure on Governments that they intervened where they did not really want to. The "why no us" evolution will undoubtably see us doing it again. It may not be Syria but it will be somewhere.

 

[57Chevy]

It may not be Syria but it will be somewhere.

Perhaps elsewhere on the world stage in a country with a lesser military partnership.

Economic sanctions in Syria are possible to enforce and maintain without adverse humanitarian issues arising as a result.
Considering the Syrian alliances, a military intervention similar to that of Libya could/would destabilize the entire region.
(including the European underbelly)
I see it as very thin ice.
IMO Syria is the fuse that Iran hopes to ignite.

I can agree that caution must be exercised by all parties regarding Syrian resolutions.

 

[lethalLemon]

I vote maybe.

Why? They need to be put in their place, Syria has been known to be guilty of firing missiles into Israel along side Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza/West Bank (Palestine). International powers can use this uprising as a double edged sword to not only restore order and peace in the region, but also as a "foot in the door" to end the violence by these terrorist cells attacking Israel (and/or Palestine). Now, I don't know if that would at all be possible, this is just speculation as I believe that there's some sort of international regulation against saying your mission is one thing, but then also doing another. On another hand, if a nation such as Canada were to jump in with the intervention teams, this could spark outside resistance from other countries (especially in such a volatile region) and you'd have yourself facing quite a bloodbath. If we look at Libya though, the CF is participating in the largest ordinance drop missions since... what was it? Korea or WW2? Outside resistance has not been present, so it's clear that the people/allies of a lot of these neighbouring nations do not support these tyrants, which is a good sign but in my opinion I would not risk jumping into Syria... too close to Lebanon for comfort.

However, this brings me to my next point. Now bear with me, I know this is going to seem a bit outlandish: The USA has large oil corporations with interests and assets in Libya and Egypt, that's why they jumped so quickly to suppress the revolt. It's possible that the UN is not jumping to their feet and doing something about the revolt in Syria because there's nothing of any real value to the USA or EU in that country... except people, but then again I don't know that for sure. I don't know much about Syria as I used to. Once again, please note, this is just speculation and should be taken entirely serious.

 

[aesop081]

The USA has large oil corporations with interests and assets in Libya

Of all the oil companies owned by Libya (National Oil Company and its subsidiaries), only the Waha Oil Company has American involvement ( ConocoPhillips 16.3%, Marathon Oil 16% and the Hess Corporation 8%). One other US company, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, operates in Libya.

The numbers in terms of production and value don't look to smashing. US imports of Libyan oil are not that significant either at 70 000 barrels per day in 2010.

In my estimation, Libya is not about American oil.

 

[lethalLemon]

Of all the oil companies owned by Libya (National Oil Company and its subsidiaries), only the Waha Oil Company has American involvement ( ConocoPhillips 16.3%, Marathon Oil 16% and the Hess Corporation 8%). One other US company, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, operates in Libya.

The numbers in terms of production and value don't look to smashing. US imports of Libyan oil are not that significant either at 70 000 barrels per day in 2010.

In my estimation, Libya is not about American oil.

Hmm, alright, but like I said, it was just speculations; food for thought.

 

[teabag]

Intervention in Syria without a U.N. mandate would be akin to shooting ourselves in the foot.  Most of us can only guess at why Libya was picked as the stepping stone.  It may not have been about oil but it sure is comforting to know that what is being delivered will continue to flow.  It would be foolish to believe that U.S. interests in the region have no influence on our decision to participate.  If they have no reason to go there, neither would we.  Yes, it's unfortunate that the government is cracking down on protesters but aside from sanctions there really is not much else to do at this point.

 

[apeaceofconflict]

Of all the oil companies owned by Libya (National Oil Company and its subsidiaries), only the Waha Oil Company has American involvement ( ConocoPhillips 16.3%, Marathon Oil 16% and the Hess Corporation 8%). One other US company, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, operates in Libya.

The numbers in terms of production and value don't look to smashing. US imports of Libyan oil are not that significant either at 70 000 barrels per day in 2010.

In my estimation, Libya is not about American oil.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/conflict-in-libya-us-oil-companies-sit-on-sidelines-as-gaddafi-maintains-hold/2011/06/03/AGJq2QPH_story.html

This suggests that the oil factor is bigger than what you are saying:

"By the time Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited in 2008, U.S. joint ventures accounted for 510,000 of Libya's 1.7 million barrels a day of production, a State Department cable said. "

Also "He said experts believed that only 30 percent of Libya had been explored and that there was “much more oil to be discovered.”

The oil companies have also invested significant amounts in the last 5 years in exploration, and future production.


Also, there is the matter of the possible unreported nuclear facilities that were recently brought to the UN by the IAEA.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/conflict-in-libya-us-oil-companies-sit-on-sidelines-as-gaddafi-maintains-hold/2011/06/03/AGJq2QPH_story.html

This suggests that the oil factor is bigger than what you are saying:

"By the time Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited in 2008, U.S. joint ventures accounted for 510,000 of Libya's 1.7 million barrels a day of production, a State Department cable said. "

Also "He said experts believed that only 30 percent of Libya had been explored and that there was “much more oil to be discovered.”

The oil companies have also invested significant amounts in the last 5 years in exploration, and future production.


Also, there is the matter of the possible unreported nuclear facilities that were recently brought to the UN by the IAEA.

Libyan oil production courtesy of the U.S. Dept. of Energy's Energy Information Agency (EIA):

Exports
With domestic consumption estimated around 270,000 bbl/d in 2010, Libya's net exports (including all liquids) were slightly over 1.5 million bbl/d. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) the vast majority (around 85 percent) of Libyan oil exports are sold to European countries namely Italy, Germany,
France, and Spain. With the lifting of sanctions against Libya in 2004, the United States has increased
its imports of Libyan oil. According to EIA January through November estimates, the United States imported an average of 71,000bbl/d from Libya in 2010 (of which, 44,000 bbl/d was crude), up from 56,000 bbl/d in 2005 but a decline from 2007 highs of 117,000 bbl/d.

My Emphasis.

 

[aesop081]

See:

This suggests that the oil factor is bigger than what you are saying:

I took my numbers from the US department of energy's 2010 data. You just cherry-picked one part that suited what you had to say, probably because when you clicked to go to page 3, you got advertising like i did.

 

[FoverF]

Well yes, I would support foreign (ie not Canadian) intervention in Syria.

There are a lot of people being killed, for the sake of standing up to their corrupt dictator. That's not something anybody likes to see.

IF there was a foreign power with local and regional support, who would be able to intervene in an effective manner, I would (morally and vocally) support them. This would be up to and including overthrowing the Al-Assad government, and (if required, briefly) occupying the country to re-establish order. I would also be willing to see my tax dollars go towards these goals in some direct or indirect way.

There are several flies in the ointment here, including a lack of an appropriate agent to intervene, the fear of a weaker government unable to resist Islamo-fascist influence, the inevitable regional backlash against any western-supported government using violence in the region (and lets face it, any country capable of intervening has western support), etc.

It's the right thing to do, but it's a minefield. I'd support anybody who has a chance to sort it out. Especially if they're foreign.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I fully support offering up a free flight in a C17 to turkey/Iraq where Peace protesters can march across the border to confront the Syrian military and convince them to settle this dispute with the proper conflict resolution tools.
I have no doubt the committed members of the peace organizations will volunteer for this important mission. If they don’t we can tell them it’s a flight to fly protesters to support the return of the Golan heights and to embarrass Israel , by the time they find out the truth it will be to late.

 

[57Chevy]

                                      Article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
US naval movements around Syria. Hizballah moves rockets
DEBKAfile/Exclusive Report June 14
http://www.debka.com/article/21026/

debkafile's military and intelligence sources report that Monday, June 13, the US deployed the USS Bataan amphibian air carrier strike vessel opposite Syria's Mediterranean coast with 2,000 marines, 6 war planes, 15 attack helicopters, including new V-22 Ospreys,  and 27 choppers for landing forces aboard.Also this week, US naval units went operational in the Aegean, Adriatic and Black Seas as part of the joint US-Ukrainian Sea Breeze 2011 exercise.
The USS Monterrey cruiser armed with Aegis surface missile interceptors has additionally been stationed in the Black Sea. Western sources additonally report a build-up of ship-borne anti-missile missile strength in the Mediterranean basin.

This huge concentration of naval missile interceptor units looks like preparations by Washington for the contingency of Iran, Syria and Hizballah letting loose with surface missiles against US and Israeli targets in the event of US military intervention to stop the anti-opposition slaughter underway in Syria.
Moscow, Tehran and Damascus, in particular, are taking this exceptional spate of American military movements in and around the Mediterranean as realistically portending American intervention in Syria.

This concentration of US might also the effect of deterring the Turkish government from going through with its decision to send Turkish troops into Syria.
The plan was to create a protected buffer zone where the thousands of refugees in flight from the Assad regime's military crackdown would be kept safe on Syrian side of the border and out of Turkey.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyep Erdogan is averse to be seen working hand in glove militarily with any US interference in Syria.

At the same time, Western intelligence sources in the Persian Gulf are sure Washington is coordinating its military movements with Ankara and that Erdogan quietly agreed to place Turkish bases at US disposal for an operation in Syria.

Debkafile's military sources also report that Monday, June 13, Hizballah began shifting the long- and medium-range rockets it had stored in northern Lebanon to locations in the center of the country.

Western military sources first thought the Lebanese Shiite group was taking the precaution of keeping its arsenal safe from a spillover of violence from Syria. Tuesday, however, they learned that Iranian intelligence had advised Hizballah to remove its rockets out of range of a possible American operation in Syria.

Tuesday, Iran capped these events with three separate warnings to the Obama administration against military interference in Syria.

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said Tuesday: "The Americans are not allowed to launch a military intervention in any country of the region including Syria."

He accused "Israel and the USA of standing behind the riots in Syria, Iran's closest ally in the Arab world… with particular aims…of provoking terrorist groups in Syria and in the region to carry out terrorist and sabotage operations."

Another spokesman warned: "Western attempts to set the model of Libya in Damascus are doomed to failure."

Iranian Vice President Reza Rahimi accused the United States of preparing and executing "the slaughter of Muslims" worldwide.

Iran's ground forces commander Brig. Gen. Kioumars Heidari added this threat: Any new military move by the US in the region will impose heavy costs on the country far greater than the costs it paid in Iraq and Afghanistan."