What can we do to help stop the carnage in Syria

[Watanabe]

Reading the recent thread about Syria I noticed a lot of bickering back and forth about the responsibilities of this war.
To me it seems that all parties involved are guilty.
Assad as he kills his own citizens
Iran , China, Russia as they support Assad
The rebels as they are refusing any kind of compromise
The US the West and Japan as they are supporting the rebels.
Gulf states as well.

At the end of the day, the responsibilities are in our hands.
What can we practically do to help stop the carnage in Syria?
Ideas?

 

[fuelair]

Who cares. Let'em sort it out there and then drone off any remaining bad guys.

 

[erwinl]

Other than splitting the country on two, I don't see how this can end other than in more bloodshed.

In the end it's between the two warring parties (Assad and the rebels) to go on or to stop.

Either it will end with one of the parties defeated (and most likely eradicated) or it will end in something which looks like Lebanon. A country which formally is one state, but where no one, as a group, has control over the entire country.

The latter end I think the more likely and possibly over the long run even costing the least amount of lives.

 

[Watanabe]

Who cares. Let'em sort it out there and then drone off any remaining bad guys.

And if someone considers me or you as "bad guy"

 

[Spindrift]

Reading the recent thread about Syria I noticed a lot of bickering back and forth about the responsibilities of this war.
To me it seems that all parties involved are guilty.
Assad as he kills his own citizens
Iran , China, Russia as they support Assad
The rebels as they are refusing any kind of compromise
The US the West and Japan as they are supporting the rebels.
Gulf states as well.

At the end of the day, the responsibilities are in our hands.
What can we practically do to help stop the carnage in Syria?
Ideas?

Practically the only way to stop the carnage is to get one side or the other to win. The quicker the better. Which side do you think should win?

 

[McHrozni]

Practically the only way to stop the carnage is to get one side or the other to win. The quicker the better. Which side do you think should win?

I vote the Kurds.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

At the end of the day, the responsibilities are in our hands.
What can we practically do to help stop the carnage in Syria?
Ideas?

The assumption here is that "we" can do anything practical to "help". As bizarre as it may sound, maybe "we" cannot "help" in any useful way whatsoever.

Does this make "us" bystanders of carnage? Maybe. But are there no situations that you can think of when you really cannot do anything to help the situation? I know that I have seen such situations and been in them.

If "we" can do anything, then maybe we need to think hard about what those things are. But I don't see many useful propostitions being put forward.

Who cares. Let'em sort it out there and then drone off any remaining bad guys.

Care to expand on this?

Practically the only way to stop the carnage is to get one side or the other to win. The quicker the better. Which side do you think should win?

Yeah, but that simple-sounding idea may be more difficult to achieve in practice.

I vote the Kurds.

McHrozni

Do the Kurds actually have widespread support among the population of Syria in general?

I think no. But if you could name any Kurdish groups who are widely popular in Syria then you may have a point.

Can you do that?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Well, in practice this stuff never works out as modelled. But here's roughly what Samual Huntington has to say about proxy wars during the cold war:

Proxy wars are regional conflicts that heat up and the respective sides get backing from the core states (as defined as the strongest states in their cultural/religious/ethnic bloc).

Generally the fighting parties go the whole hog, in a bid to win. So the backing "core states" keep increasing the amount of money, weapons, training, "advisors", mercenaries to have their side win. Since these core states are usually pretty powerful, they can keep increasing all this stuff till the cows come home, and do every time their side looks like it's losing.

Until they reach a point where they actually have to commit their own troops, and the opposing "core state" has to do this as well.

In this scenario that would probably mean Iranian and Saudi boots on the ground.

Now, during the cold war this meant Russia and the US coming to blows. This could never be allowed because, well, nukes.
So at this point the core states would start to pull support and telling their proxies to sign a treaty and STFU.

The situation isn't quite that clean with the backers of the conflict being rather diverse and including Russia and China, who's backing of their side is one of strategic convenience rather than shared identity.

I will also make the following prediction: If the above scenario plays out, I will refer back to this very post to show my amazing knowledge and understanding of strategic affairs.
If it doesn't, I will never mention it again and hope everybody forgets about it.

 

[Acleron]

Practically the only way to stop the carnage is to get one side or the other to win. The quicker the better. Which side do you think should win?

That is the essential point. The lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq has not been learned. Intervention causes more misery, injury and death than no intervention. The predilection of governments to actively support one faction against another leads to disaster. States have supported groups to deliberately destabilise other countries but even when intervening for humanitarian purposes it has seldom been successful. The only one that worked that comes to mind was the joint action in the Serb-Croat war. That was accomplished by overwhelming support from many countries, an event we cannot expect very often.

In Syria, the main aim must be to stop the fighting and let the bloodshed of the defeated side take place. The wish is to do something, especially for the side for your own type of society is great but must be resisted.

 

[Virus]

That is the essential point. The lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq has not been learned. Intervention causes more misery, injury and death than no intervention.

Actually both countries are better off it's just that there's more media access to those places now therefore more stories of death and gore.

 

[erwinl]

Well, in practice this stuff never works out as modelled. But here's roughly what Samual Huntington has to say about proxy wars during the cold war:

Proxy wars are regional conflicts that heat up and the respective sides get backing from the core states (as defined as the strongest states in their cultural/religious/ethnic bloc).

Generally the fighting parties go the whole hog, in a bid to win. So the backing "core states" keep increasing the amount of money, weapons, training, "advisors", mercenaries to have their side win. Since these core states are usually pretty powerful, they can keep increasing all this stuff till the cows come home, and do every time their side looks like it's losing.

Until they reach a point where they actually have to commit their own troops, and the opposing "core state" has to do this as well.

In this scenario that would probably mean Iranian and Saudi boots on the ground.

Now, during the cold war this meant Russia and the US coming to blows. This could never be allowed because, well, nukes.
So at this point the core states would start to pull support and telling their proxies to sign a treaty and STFU.

The situation isn't quite that clean with the backers of the conflict being rather diverse and including Russia and China, who's backing of their side is one of strategic convenience rather than shared identity.

I will also make the following prediction: If the above scenario plays out, I will refer back to this very post to show my amazing knowledge and understanding of strategic affairs.
If it doesn't, I will never mention it again and hope everybody forgets about it.

Also a possible outcome.

As for now. It looks like the Assad forces are winning (most likely very much thanks to Hezbollah). Can they go the whole way and claim the entire country? Who knows? Personally I don't think so.

Both Hezbollah and Iran have a history of intervening/supporting by direct intervention. Something Saudi Arabia doesn't really do. Which gives something of an advantage to team Assad.

 

[erwinl]

.... Delete......

Double post

 

[Bikewer]

All the reporting I've listened to indicates that the situation in Syria is hideously complex... With the people supporting Assad doing so in many cases because they fear bloody suppression and ethnic cleansing if he looses.
Assad has been supporting various minorities; not only his own Alawite minority, but Christians and such. They are all terrified of the consequences if the regime falls.

Outside of Syria.... It's even worse. Hezbollah has thrown in with Assad, which is making no one happy. It's no secret he's getting support from Iran as well, in addition to the well-publicized support from Russia and at least tacit support from China.
There are fears on all sides of a widening war that will re-ignite Lebanon, draw in Israel, and generally become very messy indeed.
Not that it's not already very messy with over 80,000 estimated killled.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Well, in practice this stuff never works out as modelled. But here's roughly what Samual Huntington has to say about proxy wars during the cold war:

Proxy wars are regional conflicts that heat up and the respective sides get backing from the core states (as defined as the strongest states in their cultural/religious/ethnic bloc).

Generally the fighting parties go the whole hog, in a bid to win. So the backing "core states" keep increasing the amount of money, weapons, training, "advisors", mercenaries to have their side win. Since these core states are usually pretty powerful, they can keep increasing all this stuff till the cows come home, and do every time their side looks like it's losing.

Until they reach a point where they actually have to commit their own troops, and the opposing "core state" has to do this as well.

In this scenario that would probably mean Iranian and Saudi boots on the ground.

Now, during the cold war this meant Russia and the US coming to blows. This could never be allowed because, well, nukes.
So at this point the core states would start to pull support and telling their proxies to sign a treaty and STFU.

The situation isn't quite that clean with the backers of the conflict being rather diverse and including Russia and China, who's backing of their side is one of strategic convenience rather than shared identity.

I will also make the following prediction: If the above scenario plays out, I will refer back to this very post to show my amazing knowledge and understanding of strategic affairs.
If it doesn't, I will never mention it again and hope everybody forgets about it.

That's not bad. Problems:

1. You have to explain (not to me) how this is a proxy war. The conventional wisdom is that "the dictator started killing his own people".
   
2. You don't have the "core states" properly specified. In last consequence this is what I like to call Empire ("Western" finance capitalism with NATO as its armed wing) against the proponents of a multipolar world. The direct aggressors, mainly Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are to different but high degrees (100-80%) puppets of the Empire.

The stage we are at is, as described by Huntington, that there is no way to "win" this by throwing more cannon fodder (which is available in abundance) at the thing, given that they have lost all support of the population and many internal "rebels" have already given up arms and sometimes joined the loyalist - to Syria - forces. Plan A has failed, cohesion of Syria was underestimated.

Like you describe, now it's boots on the ground (which could end in WWIII) or admit defeat. If the latter should happen, it would be quite easy to end the tragedy:

1. Pressure the puppets Q and SA to immediately cease financial and material support, and let their propaganda outlets and pet hate preachers steer the cannon fodder away.
   
2. Pressure puppet T to stop giving ground to training and infiltration of those groups. Pressure them to secure the borders, if nessesary with help of international peace-keepers.
   
3. Stop giving logistical support in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere. Stop the corporate propaganda machine.
   
4. Lift the sanctions which as always only hit the little guy.
   
5. Send the pathetic external puppet opposition to were they came from (most often not Syria)
   
6. At this point, security will be restored in a couple of weeks. The Syrian side would likely not need to be pressured very much into early presidential (is scheduled for 2014) and new parliamentary elections (happened in 2012) under the new constitution (from 2012, ending the one-party-state), and this should be controlled by international observers.
   
7. Not unlikely Assad would win.

 

[angrysoba]

Both Hezbollah and Iran have a history of intervening/supporting by direct intervention. Something Saudi Arabia doesn't really do. Which gives something of an advantage to team Assad.

Sorry, what?

Saudi Arabia "doesn't really do" intervention?

Yes, they do.

GID in Afghanistan, for example, or intervention in the post-Iraq War in support of Salafists who mostly worked against US-coalition intervention. Or intervention against the protesters in Bahrain.

I expect that Saudi Arabia are doing a fair bit of intervention now, too.

 

[Watanabe]

The assumption here is that "we" can do anything practical to "help". As bizarre as it may sound, maybe "we" cannot "help" in any useful way whatsoever.

Does this make "us" bystanders of carnage? Maybe. But are there no situations that you can think of when you really cannot do anything to help the situation? I know that I have seen such situations and been in them.

So who can?
Obama? He is under pressure from the lobbies
China, Russia.. do their Government care?
Gulf States are dictatorships

Who can help?

 

[Watanabe]

Practically the only way to stop the carnage is to get one side or the other to win. The quicker the better. Which side do you think should win?

If one side wins over the other, there will be carnage.
In any case, if still in the XXI centuries we have to fight wars where one side has to slaughter the other, where are we any different from when XIV century?
Where are we more civilized?

 

[Eddie Dane]

So who can?
Obama? He is under pressure from the lobbies
China, Russia.. do their Government care?
Gulf States are dictatorships

Who can help?

Define help.

IMHO the whole thing vindicates Machiavelli's The Prince.
Better the stability of an iron-fisted dictator than this this crap.

 

[The Don]

So who can?
Obama? He is under pressure from the lobbies
China, Russia.. do their Government care?
Gulf States are dictatorships

Who can help?

Well, we know that Russia cares about Assad, they've been supporting him for years.

As Eddie Dane says, it depends what you mean by "help". It seems that there are number of factions in Syria with mutually incompatible goals and objectives and where those goals are so entrenched they cannot be satisfied by a single solution. If Syria remains a single country under some kind of government (dictatorship, democracy, theocracy..... whatever) there are enough internal actors (with external support) to ensure that civil war will re-erupt.

Then again, a fragmentation of Syria will result in smaller states who will no doubt result in a series of border conflicts and allow one or more of those states to become a base of operations for terrorists to attack Israel (certainly) and the West (probably).

Maybe the least worst alternative is to back Assad to the hilt and hope to support him sufficiently well that he is no longer reliant on Iranian funded terrorist support. Maybe a strong dictator is the only plausible solution at the moment but I cannot see the US and Israel being happy about Assad's links to Russia.

 

[Spindrift]

If one side wins over the other, there will be carnage.
In any case, if still in the XXI centuries we have to fight wars where one side has to slaughter the other, where are we any different from when XIV century?
Where are we more civilized?

If both sides keep fighting there will be carnage. At this point it doesn't look like either side is going to stop because if they do, the other side will just take advantage of that.

Why are you derailing this thread. It's not about whether or not we are more civilized. It's about stopping the carnage in Syria.

Currently, the only feasible way to stop it is if one side one wins. So which side do you want to win?