Chrissie Hynde
: Don't Get Me Wrong: I Won't Stand For Cruelty to Geese
Ed Miliband
: A Distant and Distracted Cameron Cannot Tackle Tax Avoidance
Charles Moore
: Margaret Thatcher's First Visit to Washington of the Reagan Presidency
Natalie Bennett
: Jobs You Can Build a Life On: The British Economy Isn't Delivering
Seth Freedman
: We Don't Need No Regulation
The recent peace plan to solve the situation in Syria has received the backing of the UN Security Council. This undoubtedly puts additional pressure on president Bashar al-Assad, who had earlier relied on Russia and China to veto any UN resolutions deemed too critical of the Syrian regime. But what will happen when this latest initiative also fails?
Should Western powers seek to intervene militarily in Syria to stop the bloodshed? Should they do so even if the UN fails to agree on a resolution? I think not. Taking sides in internal conflicts is always tricky and would almost certainly be a recipe for disaster in the Syrian case.
In Libya the situation was markedly different. Not only was a UN resolution obtained, but crucially also support from the Arab League. However, because the objective of the NATO-led mission in Libya was quickly transformed from protecting civilians to carrying out regime change, much of the Arab support was lost. Since the UN resolution was hijacked in such a crude fashion in Libya, both Russia and China are much more reluctant to offer a carte blanche for military intervention in Syria out of fear that the same thing would happen there.
Another factor that cannot be overlooked is the regional power balance. It is no secret that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been the driving force behind the Syrian opposition, just as they were instrumental in backing the Libyan opposition. This has been seen in the secret arming of Syrian opposition fighters and calls on Assad to step down. The Gulfi support for the Libyan and Syrian opposition must be seen in the light of the modern history of the Middle East, where traditionally Mu'ammar al-Gadaffi and Hafez al-Assad (Bashar's father who ruled Syria from 1970 to 2000) were the enemies of the absolute monarchies of the Gulf.
The attempts of Qatar and Saudi Arabia to get rid of Bashar al-Assad has very little to do with concerns over his authoritarian way of ruling and his ruthless suppression of the population. After all, since the start of the so-called Arab Spring in early 2011 they have been trying to stem the flow of the revolutionary forces in the Gulf, including launching a military intervention in Bahrain to quell protests there.
On the other hand, events over the past year have turned out to be quite advantageous to these two conservative Arab kingdoms. In Tunisia, the Islamist al-Nahda Party came out as the strongest political force in last year's elections which followed in the wake of the overthrow of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak's fall has paved the way for the Muslim Brothers and the Salafist al-Nur Party. In Libya, the former Jihadist Abdelhakim Belhadj wields extensive power as the leader of the Military Council of Tripoli. In Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood are becoming increasingly vociferous and confident, and in Turkey the moderately Islamist AKP has been running the country for the past decade and steering it towards a more 'Islamic' foreign policy.
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, who are currently outlawed and working underground, are looking optimistically to the future. In a recent interview, their leader, Mohammed Riad al-Shaqfa, said the only language Assad understands is that of force and that the people were determined to overthrow the regime.
While it is difficult to gauge exactly how big the Muslim Brotherhood's influence is in Syria, it is likely that it too would play a significant role in a future Syria should the current regime fall - just as its sister organisations do in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan and Palestine.
The current plight of civilians in Syria is undoubtedly a serious problem, but a military intervention to topple the regime is certainly not the best way to address it.
As was clear in the case of Libya, Western powers operating through NATO were willing to commit resources to an aerial bombardment campaign that was relatively risk free. They were, however, unwilling to send in ground troops (perhaps having learnt their lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan). The resulting mess in Libya is looking increasingly like Mogadishu of the early 1990s, where armed militias control their own areas and no-one is willing to submit to a national authority - and this in a country that was said to be homogenous and unified in its opposition to Gaddafi.
Imagine what might happen in a country divided between Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Palestinians, Sunnis, Ithna 'Ashari Shi'is, 'Alawis, Isma'ilis, Druzes, and Christians and where the opposition appears to be partial and fragmented.
Follow Dr Johan Franzén on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Dr_JohanFranzen
A street called Syria divides tense Lebanese city
Clashes across Syria despite UN ceasefire call
Syrian attacks continue despite UN condemnation
UN chief: Syria unrest could have global impact
STOP SH00TING and TALK is not a "SIDE"!
Military action does not REQUIRE a “side”, just a MISSION! The Syrian situation is as hot buttoned a political sphere as one can get true but the MOST fundamental fact is NOT political, it is HUMANITARIAN:
Innocents are dying!
ANYONE who wishes to enforce a CEASE FIRE of/from/with both sides is more than supported anytime anywhere in my perspective! If that takes military intervention to get them all to stop killing so BE it. A simple mission goal of: “STOP SH00TING and TALK!” is NOT taking “sides”…. unless someone believes allowing all humans to live is a side…?
Respectfully DISAGREE vehemently! As you then go on to state: “Taking sides in internal conflicts is always tricky and would almost certainly be a recipe for disaster in the Syrian case.”
Military action does not REQUIRE a “side”, just a MISSION! The Syrian situation is as hot buttoned a political sphere as one can get true but the MOST fundamental fact is NOT political, it is HUMANITARIAN:
Innocents are dying!
ANYONE who wishes to enforce a CEASE FIRE of/from/with both sides is more than supported anytime anywhere in my perspective! If that takes military intervention to get them all to stop killing so be it. A simple mission goal of: “STOP SHOOTING and TALK!” is NOT taking “sides”…. unless someone believes allowing all humans to live is a side…?
When countries have military power, they exercise it. Even poxy little failed states like Cuba and Zimbabwe have had little foreign adventures with their armies.
Syria has been interefering in the affairs of Lebanon, and doubtless other states as well. the bigger and more powerful the army, the more it gets used.
Why? Very simple - because they can. There is no other reason. All stated reasons to justify the use of those armies are simply excuses, whether the army in question is that of Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, USA, UK, blah blah blah. They do it because they can.
Now, the only determinant that will decide if nations will or will not intervene in Syria is their ability to do so. The UK is militarily (i.e. financially) exhausted. The USA is not in much better shape. Therefore there will be no intervention in Syria.
The USA does not want to have to intervene in Iran, so it is employing every diplomatic trick it can to avoid the need. If it had more money, that would be a different story - there is no nation it would like to attack more. But it can't afford it, so it won't.
And it won't atack Syria - so the population will continue to be slaughtered by its own army, which is being deployed by the Syrian government against its own people.... because it can.
If
The crux of the matter is whether Americans and NATO powers should decide which regime should be overthrown and how it should be executed.
It may also be true that like all Arab regimes, Syrian regime failed to establish a strong modern and democratic state, by lack of national security policies,..
USA and Israel want a regime change in Syria and Iran, Conspiracy?
Several thousand mercenaries infiltrated the country. Recruited by agencies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar within the Sunni extremist community, supported secretly by the NATO powers,
They also have access to vital military information, including satellite images of Syrian troop movements, and telephone interceptions.,
Russian television channel indicated that Syria had captured a dozen French soldiers..
The Syrian opponents are largely manipulated and supported by USA, Israel and France,
In the secret war against Syria, , France and its allies are responsible for a conflict that caused the death of at least 3,000 Syrian soldiers and 1,500 civilians, plus economic losses and the sabotage of infrastructure estimated at least $ 3 billion.
No Arab country looked after the Palestinian Refugees better than Syria, they were a friend to the Palestinian people.
Syria is another Libya. NATO, media driven war. There are many things that need to change in Syria but not this way of the arms industry and by the secret agenda of Western powers.
The Western powers are contemplating their moves in Syria.
Pity the people of Syria are the victims. What is the point of talking to them when outsiders instigate them,
France was in the forefront of Libyan democracy, Was France sincere towards promoting democracy or more after Libyan oil? Ask the French Govt. and the people of France
Why did the same France violently and unethically kill Algerian democracy in December 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), an Algerian political party, had won national democratic elections, proving to be immensely popular.
It is an undeniable fact that the United States, Britain and France are hated in the region for very good reasons and hence more antagonism towards the Western powers.
USA and her Western allies must be seriously planning their strategy to reposition their lost powers
Future controlling involves shifting western alliances from authoritarian regimes to some sort of democracy simply because it is impossible for the west to support its favourite dictators.
What is the point of getting help from insincere and manipulating world powers?
Iraq is right in front of our eyes. Tens of thousands of People like me hated Saddam Hussein and went to the extent of morally co-operating with his opponents and dissidents like the Munafiq Ahmed Chalabi ( I did not feel that way then)in seeking help to punish and execute Saddam and overthrow his administration)
What were the consequences?
But right now the same people feel the foolishness, naivety and immaturity of such political thinking and wish if only Saddam had remained in power and we could have saved the deaths of about 1.2 million Iraqis and the nation going to the stone age. Americans did not want democracy but they wanted to destroy Saddams power and they have done that..
Who was responsible for this tragedy?
Libyans and Syrians are giving importance to tribes and denominations as Afghans have given importance to their tribes:
The future of Libya and Syria is so uncertain and seriously worrying. Let God Almighty bring unity and good senses to the leaders and the peoples.
http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/black-genocide-libya-why-silence
Truth is stranger than fiction.
The meme is that Ghadaffi is bad, so the opposition to him are by definition 'good'. Can't argue about Ghadaffi, but that doesn't make his opponents any better. Same in Syrua.
I pretty much think Saudi Arabia is responsible for more bad things than any other country.
In the final analysis it depends on the intentions of the intervening powers.
But as Ahmad Chalabi and his Associate Iraqi dissidents pulled the wool over their own eyes and helped towards the destruction of their own nation by supporting foreign intervention. Over a million poor Iraqis murdered to kill one Saddam Hussein.
The Butcher of Hama Rifaat al-Assad the former vice president of Syria and his gang may do the same under the pretext of helping Britain and Western powers in bringing democracy to Syria.
It is an undeniable fact that the United States, Britain and France are hated in the region for very good reasons and hence more antagonism towards the Western powers by most of the common folk in the region.
For instance in Egypt itself, public opinion polls have shown about 90 per cent of the population thinks the US is the worst threat they face.
The US has yet to figure out how to control the new democratic aspirations of rebels. But controlling, covertly or overtly is a prerequisite of American policy.
It involves shifting western alliances from authoritarian regimes to Western tip-toeing democracy simply because it is impossible for the west to support its favourite dictators.
Far too many high ranking politicians, high ranking Govt. employees, even in thriving democracies like India; Italy, Europe the USA, Mexico and in umpteen countries around the world are profligate sex addicts, and same thing applies to many monarchs and the worlds rich guys.
How much clean was President Kennedy in his extra-marital and illicit sex matters?
How about President Clinton’s shameful sex relation with the White house employee Lewinsky?
Was there an impeachment on him though his behaviour is authentically well documented.
How about the horrendous and despicable sex adventures of the Italian HOG Sylvia Berlusconi?
Would NATO allow China supporting anti- Berlusconi rebels to kill him and treat him as a common criminal ?
My question is, can that be a sensible reason for NATO bombing a nation to Stone Age and changing regimes to in order to continue the oil piracy. It smells obnoxiously hypocritical and rank bunkum
I hated Gaddafi. But Nato’s move towards regime change was much dirtier than Gaddafi’s sex plays.