there's a certain irony in seeing people who are privileged to live in a democracy brought into existence by violent revolution, and fraying so hard that it would split into bloody civil war, worry about the unstable beginnings of a democracy. Democracy is a long, hard, bloody grind, but the fact that we're able to discuss it now, is a testament to how it's worth it in the end. makes me wonder what old King George thought of the American Revolution.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm afraid the country will plunge into sectarian violence like Iraq after the fall of Saddam. Sure Saddam was a brutal dictator during his reign, but life during the sectarian violence days (well its still not over yet) was much worse for the Iraqi people.
You ensure that by making compliance with it conditional to receiving the aid. If they don't comply the U.S. cuts the aid.
At points a leader that wants to infuse religion with leadership might get elected. But the good thing is that the person can be voted out, and a society that was so secular won't bow down and just accept having their lives dictated by a strict religious doctrine. Putting democracy in place in these places won't be easy, and there will be bumps and set backs, and some chaos and turmoil. That's the way it will always be when undertaking such drastic change. I think what we're seeing in Turkey is a situation where even the slightest move towards religious extremism is being met with stern resistance. The protesters are shining light on the problem and the people have a chance to change that with the next election.
I'm glad you have such a strong handle on the situation as an apparent expert. No doubt Assad should go...but is replacing them with these rebels a better solution and giving Al Qaeda the green light to move in to impose their will? Al Qaeda would love to kill some more people with suicide bombs and turn on their good rebel friends I'm sure once they don't conform to the Al Qaeda ideology.
Am I the only one who has a fundamental problem with helping Al Qaeda affiliated rebels in their quest to topple a regime with a stockpile of chemical weapons? Aren't we fighting the war on terror and spending billions to prevent something like that from happening? And we are just going to help give them the keys to the mother load? What could possibly go wrong? I can't believe anyone thinks that this is a good idea
I'm sure the US has a plan to secure Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles should the rebels win just like they did when Libyan rebels won in which we secured all the SA-7 surface-to-air launchers. Sarcasm off.
This is pretty blatant wag the dog stuff going on, Obama starting a war with Syria coincidentally after all these scandals are hitting.
What evidence is there this will lead to democracy? The vast majority of revolutions in human history do not. This is not a democratic revolution, just Sunni and Shia trying to kill each other. Tribal warfare.
Except Obama's not starting a war. They are giving small amounts of weak weaponry to the rebels. This won't even be front page news for more than a day. Here's another interesting real-politik sort of viewpoint on the decision: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-glaser/obama-syrian-rebels_b_3444030.html Another baffling aspect of this announcement is the fact that direct arming of the rebels won't include "decisive" aid. That is, the Obama administration will be sending small arms to the rebels, stopping short of the anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry desired by the rebels. Obama knows this will not tip the balance in favor of the rebels. It will merely prolong the stalemate. And here we have a possible answer to the Obama administration's decision. It has nothing to do with any alleged use of chemical weapons. The aim is apparently to keep the Syrian war going, for some key strategic reasons. Back in April, Thanassis Cambanis argued that one reason that the Obama administration hasn't directly intervened militarily in Syria is that the long, drawn-out conflict hurts America's geopolitical competitors: The war is also becoming a sinkhole for America's enemies. Iran and Hezbollah, the region's most persistent irritants to the United States and Israel, have tied up considerable resources and manpower propping up Assad's regime and establishing new militias. Russia remains a key guarantor of the government, costing Russia support throughout the rest of the Arab world. Gulf monarchies, which tend to be troublesome American allies, have invested small fortunes on the rebel side, sending weapons and establishing exile political organizations. The more the Syrian war sucks up the attention and resources of its entire neighborhood, the greater America's relative influence in the Middle East. The ongoing conflict in Syria isn't perceived in Washington as harming U.S. interests, but -- according to Cambanis -- it is seen as draining the resources and influence of Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. This is valuable to U.S. strategists at a time when the relative balance of U.S. power is seen as waning.
I don't think it's impossible to deny that supporting the Scholls would have led to a "real mess" in Germany, because you're not getting rid of Hitler with a non-violent intellectual movement any more than you'll get rid of Assad that way. The result is chaos, civil war, that sort of thing. The real question to ask is whether said chaos is worth overthrowing a regime like that. In the case of Hitler, one can argue one way or the other, but the catch is that Hitler obviously had territorial ambitions and planned to destroy the sovereignty of other states. Lebanon aside, that really isn't true for Assad. And mentioning armed resistance groups in WW2 is completely irrelevant, because we didn't help them in the name of democracy or peace or freedom or whatever, we helped them to drive the Germans out, and we frankly did not give a damn about the Germans or what we would do with them afterwards while the war itself was going on - even Yalta and Potsdam were more about diving up the spoils amongst the Western and Soviet spheres more than anything. But that's not a reason to help the Scholls, precisely because as you pointed out, they weren't armed.
People said the same thing during about the Tahrir Square uprisings in Iran a few years back. They made the mistake of assuming that the protesters were representative of the whole country. They weren't. Instead, they were a small minority of educated young people in the large cities, and those who aren't dead or in prison are now a political non-factor. Bad guys win, good guys lose. Turkey's the same way. Political Islam is not some foreign substance being foisted on an unwilling population - part of the reason AKP holds an absolute majority in Parliament is because so many voters, especially in rural areas, think the problem is too little Islam in government, not too much. Islamism has been beating the tar out of liberal democracy throughout the region for the last decade, and I see no reason to expect that the Turkish protesters won't meet the same fate.
I suppose that's possible but we have to hope that the rebels create a strong enough government to keep control.
If that's the goal then it's pretty shrewd. A quarantined quagmire designed to occupy the financial and military resources of Iran, Hezbollah, and the Saudis where our only involvement is a little well timed support but not too much support that it creates a power vacuum.
This is a bad idea for so many reasons: 1. The rebels aren't under one unified command, there are over 20 groups. Even if you manage to form some kind of relationship with one group, it doesn't mean much. I would expect that once they chase Assad out, they will likely turn on each other. 2. The ONLY group that isn't Islamist, is a Kurdish nationalist one. 3. Russia has old treaties and a major naval installation in Syria, which pretty much obligates them to support the regime. They've been dragging their feet in delivering missiles to Assad, trying to find a middle ground of not pissing off Israel and the US, and not neglecting their old ally Assad. If the US starts getting involved in arms, I would expect Putin to not play so nice. Setting back US - Russia relations (again) is not worth any "gain" you might have in Syria. 4. Pressuring Israel to take in refugees would be a better move. As it is, the US State Dept sent out emails warning Americans not to go to the Golan, as the fighting has reached the Israeli border, and people have been hit by stray bullets. The area itself has changed sides and while the Israeli army has provided food and medical aid to civilians who ask for it at the border, they aren't taking any of them in. 5. It's being called Iran's "Vietnam" for a reason. It does benefit US interests for the war to continue, but if they overplay their hand, they can expect some blowback. As it is, the war is exhausting Iran's resources, and that coupled with the sanctions has wrecked the Iranian economy and weakened the government's political capital. The American objective is to see a regime change in Iran to something more democratic and less extreme. It's far more realistic than in Syria, and you would undermine that effort by escalation, because if the economic conditions get any more dire in Iran, it could stoke resentment from sectors of the population that are otherwise neutral or even pro-US. 6. If there is a sector of the Syrian population that's secular, educated and mostly friendly to a western orientation, it's whatever remains of Assad's civil service. These are the people with the best chance of rebuilding the country once the fighting is over, regardless of who wins. 7. Comparing the Sunni fighters in Syria to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood might be unfair -- Morsi might actually be far less extreme than what the Syrian people might end up with in power. 8. Considering the deep pockets in the Gulf financing the rebels vs. the financial straits Iran is in, there is already a huge disparity in funding, which will more than likely play out in favor of the rebels anyway. Why expose yourself to risk and wasted taxpayer money for a future political situation that's likely to be of no benefit to you? 9. With all these things considered, If the US wanted to send aid to refugees who have fled to Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey, then I'd be all for it. Baby formula, diapers, water, counseling, food, tents, games and toys, medical aid, and teachers will help the victims, the region and US interests a hell of a lot more. It would also ask less of the American taxpayer. 10. Lindsey Graham and John McCain are still living in the Cold War. Their kind of thinking is outdated and is more of the same short-sighted bad policy that has burdened US interests for the last 70 years. It's actually made the world less stable and hurts the US more than it helps it.
Several of the rebels do want a democratic future---certainly, the essence of the Arab Spring suggests that this was one of the original reasons this whole affair started. Removing Assad, in any case, makes it infinitely more possible.
