• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Syria Superthread [merged]

In my opinion we - the UN members who pay the bills - ought not to do anything to exacerbate the current problems, and that includes (my opinion again) taking military action or offering military aid. (Heaven knows if here's one thing we do not need more of in Africa and the Middle east it's weapons.)

When one side is being heavily supported and armed by UN members, why should we expect to allow them to ruin the whole region? Sure, I'd like this problem be settled without a war. Many of the things you've mentioned are expected results of the fall of the regime. There will be old score settling, but that is only because this has dragged on for so long. The longer the situation in Syria continues, the more scores need to be settled (villages vs village, tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion...etc)

Debkafile has reported Obama is planning for an airstrike, any confirmations?

As for radical Islamists, they've always existed since the birth of Islam and before then they were radical something else. Turkey has a radical islamic government, they just learned to become moderate. I always go back to history and look at what it means to be radical islamist government. Were the Ummayads, Abassi and Saladdin radical Islamists as well? If so, then why Christians and other minorities continues to live in those areas? There are many parts in northern ME where mosques and churches share the same street and even some the same walls.

I do reject the notion of radical islamists government in the ME. This is not Iran led by a Khomeini whom been granted assylum in France until he is returned to his realm!!

Further, there is a big difference in the structure of Sunni and Shia'a Islam. Shia Islam from all around the world follows the leader (Khomeini or whomever be) - think about him as the Pope for Shia. While Sunnis do not have that type of structure. Every country has their own "Mufti" - someone who makes religious orderings but he is under the direct control of the President or King and most of the time appointed directly by him.

There are some pockets like Al-Qaeda who'd like to establish the Caliphate rule. But that is a far fetched dream. I've lived and mixed with ME people and know that 90% don't believe in that shit. Most of Al-Qaeda supporters come from poor families with little education. The rest are educated anti-western nationalists like some extreme branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.
 
The radical Islamists have organization, a coherent plan (at least coherent in their eyes) and the will to execute it. It does not matter if they are a minority or come from a particular social stratum; they are more prepared to take charge of the situation, kill or cow their opponents and offer stability to the long suffering masses; who will accept with gratitude.

This is how the Taliban were able to seize control of large portions of Afghanistan, or going back farther in history, how the Bolsheviks were able to gain and consolidate power in Russia, or how Napoleon eventually came to power in the chaos of the French revolution. "The man on the white horse" isn't there for you, but his offer is tempting enough that many (maybe most) people will clutch at it.
 
Macrinus88 said:
This was the Libya before the war, a benevolent dictatorship in my opinion.

Tell that to the families of all the innocent victims who were killed/maimed by various terrorist groups (PLO/PFLP/IRA, etc) that Qaddafi supported over the years.
 
Thucydides said:
The radical Islamists have organization, a coherent plan (at least coherent in their eyes) and the will to execute it. It does not matter if they are a minority or come from a particular social stratum; they are more prepared to take charge of the situation, kill or cow their opponents and offer stability to the long suffering masses; who will accept with gratitude.

This is how the Taliban were able to seize control of large portions of Afghanistan, or going back farther in history, how the Bolsheviks were able to gain and consolidate power in Russia, or how Napoleon eventually came to power in the chaos of the French revolution. "The man on the white horse" isn't there for you, but his offer is tempting enough that many (maybe most) people will clutch at it.

Sure, but there has been other successfull revolutions. Just because there are bad apples digging their claws to ride a popular wave does not prevent us from supporting what is right. Obviously whomever these radicals are and their plans, the best way to counter them by offering support to the more streamline, moderate alternative
 
Yea some of you will laugh at my post simply because you are ignorant. It has been well documented that the CIA/US has armed and supported many Jihadist groups to destabilize nations in the Middle East.  What Former General Westley Clarke said in that video is only more proof that supports this fact. The issue is not about the internal complications with the nation but the external foreign powers who are supporting these terrorist groups to take over these nations.

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/benghazi-libya-al-qaeda.jpg

Yay! Humanitarian war of freedom in Libya! Now it is a CIA Armed Alqueda infested Extremist no mans land.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
Tell that to the families of all the innocent victims who were killed/maimed by various terrorist groups (PLO/PFLP/IRA, etc) that Qaddafi supported over the years.

I know Qaddafi's regime wasn't perfect, if you oppose a dictatorship you will obviously be killed and he also started some regional wars but Libya was obviously better off with him then what it is now. Ha, but those groups were all foreign and another mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Isreal is nothing but a segregated Zionist regime, they are very prejudice towards the muslims and settlers expand into their lands. They used White phosphorous chemical weapons on Palestinians before.
 
Macrinus88 said:
Isreal is nothing but a segregated Zionist regime, they are very prejudice towards the muslims and settlers expand into their lands. They used White phosphorous chemical weapons on Palestinians before.

Lets keep the facts in order.

Gaza Belt Leader Writes UN: Hamas Guilty of War Crimes’
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/104024.0.html
 
This thread needs to be renamed to "The Tinfoil Hat, Conspiracy Theory Soapbox Thread"............ ::)
 
Tiamo said:
When one side is being heavily supported and armed by UN members, why should we expect to allow them to ruin the whole region? Sure, I'd like this problem be settled without a war. Many of the things you've mentioned are expected results of the fall of the regime. There will be old score settling, but that is only because this has dragged on for so long. The longer the situation in Syria continues, the more scores need to be settled (villages vs village, tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion...etc)

Debkafile has reported Obama is planning for an airstrike, any confirmations?

As for radical Islamists, they've always existed since the birth of Islam and before then they were radical something else. Turkey has a radical islamic government, they just learned to become moderate. I always go back to history and look at what it means to be radical islamist government. Were the Ummayads, Abassi and Saladdin radical Islamists as well? If so, then why Christians and other minorities continues to live in those areas? There are many parts in northern ME where mosques and churches share the same street and even some the same walls.

I do reject the notion of radical islamists government in the ME. This is not Iran led by a Khomeini whom been granted assylum in France until he is returned to his realm!!

Further, there is a big difference in the structure of Sunni and Shia'a Islam. Shia Islam from all around the world follows the leader (Khomeini or whomever be) - think about him as the Pope for Shia. While Sunnis do not have that type of structure. Every country has their own "Mufti" - someone who makes religious orderings but he is under the direct control of the President or King and most of the time appointed directly by him.

There are some pockets like Al-Qaeda who'd like to establish the Caliphate rule. But that is a far fetched dream. I've lived and mixed with ME people and know that 90% don't believe in that shit. Most of Al-Qaeda supporters come from poor families with little education. The rest are educated anti-western nationalists like some extreme branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.


I've read this several times but I cannot find a casus belli, a good, justifiable reason for us - some coalition, including countries like America, Britain and Canada - to go to war. What has Syria done to us? Oh, I know about, but like everyone else, do not understand R2P; I know the Syrian regime is unpleasant, to be charitable, but is that really a good reason to invade, or at least bomb, Syria? What if, on principle (remember principles?), China refuses to agree a UNSC Resolution, what if we cannot do another Uniting for Peace in the UN General Assembly; will we invade/bomb anyway?

For the record, I opposed military intervention in Libya, too and, notwithstanding the stellar performance of the CF in the operation, including that of several members of Army.ca, some of whom I know and count amongst my friends, I remain convinced hat it was, at best, unnecessary, more likely unproductive.

 
Macrinus88 said:
Yea some of you will laugh at my post simply because you are ignorant. It has been well documented that the CIA/US has armed and supported many Jihadist groups to destabilize nations in the Middle East.  What Former General Westley Clarke said in that video is only more proof that supports this fact. The issue is not about the internal complications with the nation but the external foreign powers who are supporting these terrorist groups to take over these nations.

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/benghazi-libya-al-qaeda.jpg

Yay! Humanitarian war of freedom in Libya! Now it is a CIA Armed Alqueda infested Extremist no mans land.


When you say it's "been well documented" I suppose you mean that that is proof? Well let me tell you something, even proof is in the eye of the beholder.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I've read this several times but I cannot find a casus belli, a good, justifiable reason for us - some coalition, including countries like America, Britain and Canada - to go to war. What has Syria done to us? Oh, I know about, but like everyone else, do not understand R2P; I know the Syrian regime is unpleasant, to be charitable, but is that really a good reason to invade, or at least bomb, Syria? What if, on principle (remember principles?), China refuses to agree a UNSC Resolution, what if we cannot do another Uniting for Peace in the UN General Assembly; will we invade/bomb anyway?

For the record, I opposed military intervention in Libya, too and, notwithstanding the stellar performance of the CF in the operation, including that of several members of Army.ca, some of whom I know and count amongst my friends, I remain convinced hat it was, at best, unnecessary, more likely unproductive.

There is probably not a very direct benefit for Canadian intervention in Syria (The US/Europe is a different case). However, the world is shrinking ever smaller. What happens in Japan affect us in Canada. What is happening in the ME will affect us in N. America. Technology is advancing, communications are ever more rapid. This means we are involved in the situation as a nation participating in this world.

It is in th best interest of Canada and the rest of the world to have a stable ME. One that contributes to the prosperity of humanity instead of being the plague it has been for centuries. The geogrophical location of Syria is critical for EuroAsia transportation hub. It is important to have stability in that region, peace and governments that participate in building a better future.
 
Indeed.  I'm certain we cry ourselves to sleep at night thinking about the plight of people in the Middle East.  I think we pray for them at Church.  Maybe.  We must be experts on the Middle East by now - I bet at least one of us has spoken to someone whose boots touched the soil in that geographical area within the last twelve months.  I do wonder how many of us know a Muslim or have friends who are Muslim?  Would their thoughts and opinions be a part of the 'tin foil hat area' as well?  Has anyone spoken to a radical Islamist?  Can any of us claim that we understand them?  Or are we just confident in our moral superiority? 

The world is not shrinking; however there are groups that would like to homogenize it with utter disregard for cultural differences.  Why is the Middle East being spoken of as if they are just a means to an end?  Every person is entitled to live and fight as they wish, no?  And if we are in agreement, then can we at least admit that any military intervention in that area is not for humanitarian reasons?
 
Urmimu said:
Indeed.  I'm certain we cry ourselves to sleep at night thinking about the plight of people in the Middle East.  I think we pray for them at Church.  Maybe.  We must be experts on the Middle East by now - I bet at least one of us has spoken to someone whose boots touched the soil in that geographical area within the last twelve months.  I do wonder how many of us know a Muslim or have friends who are Muslim?  Would their thoughts and opinions be a part of the 'tin foil hat area' as well?  Has anyone spoken to a radical Islamist?  Can any of us claim that we understand them?  Or are we just confident in our moral superiority? 

The world is not shrinking; however there are groups that would like to homogenize it with utter disregard for cultural differences.  Why is the Middle East being spoken of as if they are just a means to an end?  Every person is entitled to live and fight as they wish, no?  And if we are in agreement, then can we at least admit that any military intervention in that area is not for humanitarian reasons?


Yes, indeed ... and they are equally "entitled" to do their fighting (and living and dying) without outside interference, including help from Russia (or America and its allies).
 
                                    Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Russia accuses US of arming Syria rebels
Mohammad Davari | AFP
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russia-accuses-us-arming-syria-rebels-134113113.html

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday accused the United States of supplying weapons to Syria's rebels, worsening the conflict engulfing Moscow's allied regime in Damascus.

Russia was supplying "anti-air defence systems" to Damascus in a deal that "in no way violates international laws," Lavrov told a news conference during a brief visit to Iran.

"That contrasts with what the United States is doing with the opposition, which is providing arms to the Syrian opposition which are being used against the Syrian government," he said.

It was the first time Moscow has directly pointed the finger at Washington. Previously, it had said unidentified "foreign powers" were arming Syria's opposition.

Lavrov's accusation followed a charge by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday that she had information Russia was sending to Syria "attack helicopters... which will escalate the conflict quite dramatically."

Asked in the Tehran news conference specifically about the helicopter allegation, Lavrov said only that Moscow was giving Damascus "conventional weapons" related to air defence, and asserted that the deal complied with international law.

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told reporters last month that Moscow believed "it would be wrong to leave the Syrian government without the means for self-defence."

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in the same news conference with Lavrov on Wednesday that Tehran and Moscow were "very close" on the Syria issue.

Western and Arab nations, he said, "are sending weapons to Syria and forces to Syria, and are not allowing the reforms promised by the Syrian president to be applied."

Reports in Iran allege that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United States are arming Syria's rebels -- termed "terrorists" by Damascus -- while US officials claim Iran is giving arms and military advisors to Syria's regime.

Some observers fear the conflict, which the UN's chief peacekeeper agrees now resembles a civil war, could blow up into a struggle between forces helped by outside nations.

"There is a real risk of it sliding into a proxy war as certain states support the regime or 'the opposition'," one Western diplomat told AFP, speaking on condition on anonymity.

"The conflict in Syria certainly appears to be getting more brutal -- and not just on one side," the diplomat warned.

Monitors say at least 14,100 people have been killed in the 15-month uprising against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Russia came under fierce criticism from Western and Arab countries for vetoing two UN Security Council resolutions that would have sanctioned Assad for his use of force.

Moscow is now trying to organise an international conference on Syria that would include several nations with influence over the conflict, including Iran. The United States, Britain and France, though, object to Iran taking part.
 
Yes, indeed ... and they are equally "entitled" to do their fighting (and living and dying) without outside interference, including help from Russia (or America and its allies).

That would be fair, but we do know that the Syrian regime is being supplied ammunition and fuel by outside force for the single purpose to crush its citizens.

"That contrasts with what the United States is doing with the opposition, which is providing arms to the Syrian opposition which are being used against the Syrian government," he said.

The US nor Europe had supplied any weapons to the FSA (yet!). Had they done so, you'll notice a significant change in the battle on the ground. When you hear about helis falling out of the sky or T72 tanks with reactive armor being destroyed then know the US had begun supplying weapons.

Until then, as far as I'm aware, most weapons are bought and smuggled by the opposition or captured during operations. There are very few weapons as well that are being modified or manufactured locally.
 
Tiamo said:
That would be fair, but we do know that the Syrian regime is being supplied ammunition and fuel by outside force for the single purpose to crush its citizens.

Stop, i think you are going to make me cry.
 
This article is basically very true to what is happening on the ground right now:

With smuggling choked, Syrian rebels feel shortage of heavy weapons

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/May-25/174603-with-smuggling-choked-syrian-rebels-feel-shortage-of-heavy-weapons.ashx#ixzz1xgzpqZIM

BEIRUT: Mohammad Nizar says he and his fellow rebels have the will, the fervor and the money to bring down Syrian President Bashar Assad. What they lack, he says, is the firepower.

“If I make a phone call, I’ll have maybe 2,000 Stingers,” Nizar said, then acknowledged he could not get the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles because the government is choking off all the main smuggling routes into Syria.

Small arms purchased on the black market are being smuggled in, but for all the international community’s talk of helping the rebels to bring down Assad, no government is known to be arming them.

Libya’s new rulers, fresh from their own revolution that toppled longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi, have pledged support for the Syrian rebels, but actually transferring weapons is tricky. Last month, Lebanese authorities seized a ship carrying rocket-propelled grenades and heavy caliber ammunition, possibly bound for Syrian rebels.

The fighters’ attempts to bring in heavier arms that could change the course of the 15-month-old uprising so far have been stymied at every turn, even by countries sympathetic to the revolt. All are wary of being drawn into the fight.

Any attempt by foreign governments to arm the rebels has been seen as a gamble because it could set the stage for a proxy war in an already volatile region. Such a scenario could entail Russia and Iran backing the Assad government, with the U.S. and its Arab and European allies supporting the rebels.

On the other hand, the lack of weaponry to resist a powerful crackdown by Assad’s forces has broad implications for the revolt, and it could push rebels toward desperate tactics.

Already, Syria’s rebels are shifting gears to smaller-scale guerrilla tactics like roadside bombs and hit-and-run attacks as the government chokes off the main smuggling routes.

AP interviews with security officials, rebels and arms dealers indicate that individual rebel units scrounge for weapons with almost no central organization or import routes for anything heavier than automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.

“An RPG is the biggest gun we have,” said Nizar, who handles logistics and weapons procurement for the Free Syrian Army, the loose umbrella group for rebel factions. He said it receives no equipment from foreign governments and has not seen any American aid.

That contrasts sharply with the direction the conflict appeared to be taking earlier this year. Outraged by a bloody assault to crush the opposition in the city of Homs, Western and Arab governments spoke of supplying the rebels with cash.

The Obama administration says it has started delivering a package of $12 million in communications, medical and other “non-lethal” assistance to the opposition, but there have been no obvious changes on the ground.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Libya have spoken positively of the idea of arming the Syrian rebels, but no country is known to be doing so now.

Speaking to the AP in Turkey, where he is based, Nizar said rebels have managed to seize some 30 armored vehicles including tanks and were using some of them, and that some rebels are trying to set up their own arms industry. He did not say what they are producing.

In April, Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Arab Gulf states promised to set up a multimillion-dollar fund designed to prop up Syria’s rebels and entice defections from the army, but no money is known to have been distributed yet.

Nizar said money is not the issue – plenty pours in from Syrians in exile. He said the biggest need is for anti-tank and anti-helicopter weapons, including rockets.

The rebels have cast a wide net, contacting weapons dealers in Bulgaria, Greece, Georgia and Azerbaijan, he said. Libya has “opened the store” for Syrian rebels, eager to help fellow “revolutionaries” and, more important, to get rid of its destabilizing overstocks of weapons from last year’s civil war, he said.

But the problem is transporting the weapons into Syria. Light arms used to flow relatively easily into Syria through small-scale smuggling networks. But Syria’s neighbors all have good reasons to stay out of the fight, and are wary of openly arming the rebels. In recent weeks they appear to be clamping down on smuggling.

Nizar said Turkey’s position is “live in our country and don’t make problems.” Jordan keeps even tighter control on FSA members on its soil. Syria’s border with Israel is sealed, Iraq says it has deployed troops to curb smuggling across its border with Syria, and Lebanon is too divided to take any sort of unified stance on Syria. Russia, Syria’s chief backer, has a naval base on the country’s Mediterranean coast.

Lebanese authorities have been cracking down on weapons believed to be heading for Syria, particularly through the northern port city of Tripoli, where sympathy for the rebels is widespread.

On May 7, Lebanese authorities said they seized 60,000 rounds of ammunition hidden in a ship that arrived in Tripoli carrying used cars. Last month, they seized a ship headed to Tripoli carrying Libyan weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades and heavy caliber ammunition.

Abu Raed, 40, a former smuggler living in north Lebanon near the border with Syria, said weapons flowed freely until Syria clamped down.

“There were many ways to smuggle weapons inside Syria, especially at the beginning when areas close to the northern border were free of army presence,” he said.

Then the Syrian army mined the border and closed most of the smugglers’ crossings, he said. “This has limited the work of smugglers noticeably.”

Early in the uprising, rebels would hold ground and even entire neighborhoods or towns where opposition sentiment was high. But lack of weapons and the government’s firepower forced a shift in tactics and rebels appear to have turned to roadside bombs, hit-and-run ambushes and assassinations.

Since late December, Al-Qaeda-style suicide bombings have become increasingly common, although the FSA denies having anything to do with those. Instead, they say, they target military vehicles and soldiers to chip away at the government.

“At least in recent weeks, you no longer have these big battles like one had in Homs,” Jakob Kellenberger, president of International Committee of the Red Cross, told reporters on May 8 in Geneva.

“You have more guerrilla attacks and bomb attacks,” he said.

Syrian army units have stepped up their firepower. Some are using Russian-made 2S4 Tyulpan 240mm self-propelled mortars, the world’s heaviest mortars, said Nic Jenzen-Jones, an Australia-based small arms consultant.

“Even assuming significant quantities of weapons end up in opposition hands, the regime might feel it has little reason to worry,” the International Crisis Group said in a recent report.

“In Libya, the massive NATO air campaign almost certainly did more to defeat Gadhafi’s forces than whatever assistance was provided to rebel groups; even then, it took months to achieve victory.”
 
As always, we are i9n the position of having to make the least worst choices:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/12/wilsonian-wars-wilsonian-ruin/

Wilsonian Wars, Wilsonian Ruin
Walter Russell Mead

After we expressed our concerns during NATO’s Libyan war that the afterparty was likely to be chaotic and unpleasant, we’ve been watching the horrific humanitarian and political consequences unwind in several places.

Most recently, Via Meadia has been keeping a careful eye on the growing troubles in northern Mali and the storied historical city of Timbuktu for some time. Two groups — the Tuareg independence movement MNLA and the al-Qaeda affiliated Ansar Dine — are involved in a struggle for control of a large part of northern Mali. Together, both groups put up a united front in dealing with Mali’s feeble and divided central government, with the result that they’ve seized control of large parts of the country. They then declared a “union” and announced their intention to establish an Islamic, well, something, and began the usual persecutions of and reprisals against their enemies. Due to both tribal and religious differences, their alliance is tenuous and they are held together only by their loathing and jealousy of the south — and their fear that outside groups like the group of west African nations known as ECOWAS will send troops against them.

To make matters more complicated, many of Timbuktu’s original residents, who are displeased with the newcomers, decided to establish their own armed movement — the Patriots’ Resistance Movement for the Liberation of Timbuktu. At this point we have something that looks partly like something out of Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop, partly like a Monty Python sketch, partly like a terrible human tragedy and partly like something much more ominous: a jihadi center organizing itself in an area of weak states and deep regional and ethnic rivalries.

And of course we have hundreds of thousands of refugees, most living in misery far from their homes, various people killed in the fighting and in the revenge killings and reprisals that are taking place, and the destruction of the economy across much of the north. These are all consequences of NATO’s much ballyhooed “humanitarian war” in Libya that, if anybody remembers, was originally launched because of fears that victorious Qaddafi forces would carry out massacres when they retook the rebel city of Benghazi.

NATO didn’t so much prevent massacres as move them offstage; the noble idealists and brilliant strategists in the White House who gave the go ahead for the Libyan war must now adjust their consciences as best they can as the consequences of their intervention roll on through Mali and elsewhere.

Nobody really knows where the mess in Mali will lead. There have been hints African forces will intervene against the Tuareg amid parallel fears that northern Mali would otherwise turn into a haven for international terrorists. The French, who have quietly run parts of west Africa as a neo-colonial fief for the last fifty years, are calling for yet another international intervention. Most of the world’s humanitarians and idealists, however, are so busy calling for a humanitarian war in Syria that they don’t have the energy to simultaneously call for another humanitarian war in Mali. (Nick Kristof, on the other hand, also wants a humanitarian war in Sudan.)

The mess in Mali really is a consequence of the Libyan war. Mali had plenty of problems, but things were running along mostly as usual until Gaddafi-armed Tuareg rebels ditched Libya and returned to northern Mali, where they won a series of skirmishes against poorly equipped Malian government troops. Some of those soldiers’ colleagues in Bamoko then overthrew their democratically elected president just a few weeks before elections (which would have been Mali’s fifth straight) because he was losing territory to the Tuareg and not, in their opinion, doing enough about it. Now the junta in Bamoko is refusing to hold elections while rebels establish themselves in the north and civilians are forced to arm themselves and dig deep in the desert sands for water because resources have become exceedingly scarce.

One of Africa’s more promising democratic experiments is in ruins today because of the Wilsonian war in Libya, and we will never know how many Malians have died so that western idealists could feel better about themselves for a while.

Mali isn’t the only place where the aftermath of this Wilsonian kinetic action don’t look particularly Wilsonian. Back in Libya, dozens of people were killed during fighting in the southern city of Kufra, where plentiful weapons are reigniting old rivalries and hatreds between tribes on all different sides of Libya’s borders with Chad and Sudan and between southern tribes and Libya’s current government which, ensconced on the Mediterranean coast, can seem far, far away indeed. Yet the trouble isn’t limited to Libya’s farflung desert towns — members of one of the numerous militias shut down Tripoli International Airport last Monday, blowing up a hangar and trading fire with other armed groups on the runway.

Western interventionists pushed for the NATO bombing campaign that eventually helped defeat Qaddafi partly because Libya to them seemed simple: On one side were the rebels, hopelessly outgunned, on the verge of a last stand outside Benghazi, defending their city and their women and children against the forces of a brutal dictator who had ruthlessly terrorized the country for decades. Clear cut conflict, right? A no-brainer, a simple choice between Right and Wrong.

Much, of course, like the no-brainer the humanitarians now see before them in Syria, where the brutal dictatorship isn’t only threatening to massacre its citizens, it is actually massacring them day by day.

But Syria is almost infinitely more complicated and both the “humanitarian” war and its afterparty are likely to be messier than anything that happened in Libya and surrounding countries. Syria is far smaller and more densely populated by communities that vary more widely in religion and ethnicity than Libya. Syria is in a tough neighborhood and is not isolated by desert and ocean the way Libya is. Lebanon is occupied by an equally unstable cauldron of communities that have already proven themselves quick on the trigger in their own vicious history of brutal civil wars and now in support of one side or the other in the war next door. There is a desert separating Syria from Iraq, but it is not the Sahara. Refugees and fighters — whether Iraqi, Syrian, Kurdish, Alawite, Christian — continually cross it, fleeing or joining fighting wherever it erupts. Arms traders also work this terrain; wars spread. Turkey is already dealing with thousands of refugees and on at least one occasion fighting has spilled over from the Syrian side of the border.

A nice festive humanitarian intervention in Syria, banners waving, bands playing, choirs singing and ourselves feeling incredibly righteous and smug as we exhibit the beautiful plumes of our fine moral sensibilities to an admiring world, as we bomb the evil doers from 30,000 feet and rain drones down on their heads until they see the error of their ways: the war will have a glamorous start but is unlikely to have a storybook ending.

Unlike the isolationists and the doctrinaire realists, Via Meadia doesn’t slam the door shut on all humanitarian interventions all the time.  There can be times in this world when you must act on humanitarian grounds if you can. But those times are rare; bombing the bad guys is not the solution to every crisis, cannot be the solution we trot out three times a week.

The question of Syria is a complicated one. Humanitarian, strategic and practical questions are tangled up in ways that make it very hard to choose a course of action. And one problem is that if we don’t act, others will. The arming of the Sunni opposition by Gulf Arabs, some with Salafi sympathies, will go on no matter what we think or say, and that is likely both to affect the balance of power within the Syrian opposition in ways we don’t like and to change what happens on the ground. At the same time, our strategic interest in pressuring Iran and in that way hoping to avoid a war between the US and Iran makes the ouster of the Syrian regime a much more important goal than it might otherwise be.

There are only two things we can say with any certainty about Syria now. One is that the humanitarian case for intervention is much weaker than its advocates fully grasp because the likelihood of chaos and destruction in the aftermath of a war is so great; the other is that the American policymakers who try to guide us through this morass will have to make second and third best choices. None of the alternatives is particularly attractive, and the situation is so complicated that it is not really possible to predict what the outcomes of any policy will be.
 
Russia confirmed that it was preparing to send an elite unit of marines to its naval base in Syria on Monday, sharply raising the stakes in its confrontation with the West over the future of the Assad regime.

The planned deployment was designed to send a powerful signal that Russia would not tolerate foreign military intervention in Syria, according to a Western defence source.

It was apparently ordered after the Kremlin came to conclusion that Western powers were preparing to circumvent the United Nations Security Council – where Russia holds a veto – by unilaterally authorising Nato military action in Syria. The source said that Russia had "completely misunderstood" Western intentions.

Classified US satellite images last week indicated that loading work had begun on two amphibious landing vessels, the Nikolai Filchenkov and the Caesar Kunikov, at the Crimean naval base of Sebastopol.

After initially remaining silent on the subject, a senior naval commander yesterday confirmed that both ships would shortly be heading to the Russian base at the Syrian port of Tartus, the Interfax news agency reported.

The officer said that they would carry marines charged with protecting the security of Russian citizens and evacuating a part of the base, marking the first time Moscow has sent troops to Syria since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began more than 15 months ago ....
The Telegraph (UK), 18 Jun 12
 
And according to the CP, contingency planning towards possible roles in the event of action involving Syria is underway. As one who has done this sort of thing on a number of occasions, I emphasize this is a normal precaution and should not be construed as anything sinister. The story from the Globe and Mail site is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.



Canadian military planners spin Syria scenarios as UN suspends mission


Murray Brewster

Ottawa — The Canadian Press


Published Thursday, Jun. 21 2012, 4:24 AM EDT

Last updated Thursday, Jun. 21 2012, 4:28 AM EDT

The Canadian military is drawing up contingency plans in case the Harper government chooses to join any international intervention in the Syrian crisis.

Defence sources say the work recently got under way when it became evident that UN-led peace efforts were unravelling and that unarmed observers have suspended patrols amid escalating violence.

The sources emphasized the effort is a normal part of military planning, is not the result of government direction, and is intended to give cabinet “a range of options depending on the international circumstances.”

A broad set of scenarios are under consideration, one high-ranking official at National Defence told The Canadian Press.

Another source said the different commands have not yet been asked to identify units for inclusion in any mission.

A complicating factor is the speed with which events are unfolding, notably the deployment of two Russian amphibious assault ships and 1,000 Russian marines to protect the country’s naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus, and a proposal by the Red Cross to evacuate wounded from the embattled city of Homs.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay said late Wednesday talk of a military assistance mission is premature.

“As always, the Canadian Forces stand ready to assist both at home and abroad, if and when called upon,” Jay Paxton said in an e-mail note.

“Canada continues to explore all diplomatic means available to support the people of Syria.”

France has called for a UN-enforced no-fly zone, and retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie said participating is almost certainly one of the options Ottawa would consider.

But he cautioned Canada should support only a traditional no-fly zone and not a mission similar to that in Libya, which saw NATO warplanes stretch the UN mandate to help oust Moammar Gadhafi with attacks on command centres, missile batteries and armoured vehicles.

“That would unfortunate because that’s what pissed off the Chinese and the Russians, which partially got us into this current situation,” he said.

Both major powers felt NATO went beyond its mandate in Libya.

Beijing and Moscow have repeatedly blocked UN attempts to deal with the Syrian crisis, including the use of their veto over a UN Security Council resolution that called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give up power.

Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said Syria is in a civil war and he hoped Russia would set aside its reservations and agree to invoke the UN’s Chapter 7. That allows the Security Council to take military action to restore the peace.

The French want to use a no-fly zone as the first stage to get humanitarian aid into the country, according to published reports.

Mr. MacKenzie said that is a possibility “providing the situation would permit that to even start,” but the government needs to ask whether that scenario would require low-level air cover.

The secretary-general of the Arab League called on Monday for the international community to deploy a peacekeeping force, which observers have suggested could lead to the establishment of safe havens, similar to the UN-mandated zones set up during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

“If they established safe havens tomorrow, half the world would sigh a sigh of relief and say, ‘Oh, my God. Good. We’ve done that. We’ve done something,“’ said Mr. MacKenzie, who commanded peacekeepers during the siege of Sarajavo.

“It would take it off the front page, but the problem is the government and the rebels carry on with their confrontation.”

Mr. MacKenzie said the government should resist the call to put troops on the ground, including special forces.

“I think they would be very dumb to get involved in a situation like that because it’s not going to receive UN authorization, so therefore we’d have to be led by someone, whether it’s France, the Brits or the Americans or whatever,” he said.

“I don’t foresee any circumstance in Syria, no matter how serious it gets, where Canadian boots will be on the ground.”
 
Back
Top