What should we be doing about Syria?

[MacArtist]

We would feel a lot different if we were sitting in Homs tonight.

I bet we would be hoping the rest of the world would get involved.

No oil in Syria?

[Black]

Facebook and Twitter supposedly got them into this mess . . . maybe NING or Wordspace can come up with something to help?

[rjmacs]

Pops wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
There is a responsibility to protect civilians from state-sponsored killing.

Whose responsibility? Whose citizens?
Human beings, and any citizens. More particularly, member states of the United Nations.

[Lux Interior]

[cbelt3]

Encourage the rest of the Arab League to kick Assad's butt. Stay out unless there's a fully international response, and then fly airstrikes only.

Worked nicely in Libya... I'd say try to duplicate that.

[Ted King]

cbelt3 wrote:
Encourage the rest of the Arab League to kick Assad's butt. Stay out unless there's a fully international response, and then fly airstrikes only.

Worked nicely in Libya... I'd say try to duplicate that.

Since the Russians and Chinese vetoed any meaningful United Nations actions, it seems you are right, it will be up to the Arab League to lead the way on this if anything is going to be done to stop the slaughter of Syrians by their own government. But I'm pessimistic about them getting together enough collective will to do so, though.

I keep getting a nagging feeling that there is a simmering hostility growing between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the area (Assad and most of his closest crew are Shia, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni). If there is and that hostility heats up to a boil, that could be really bad news. How would a nuclear-weaponed Iran - which is predominately Shia - fit into that kind of milieu?

[Grace62]

I don't think "nothing" is an acceptable approach at this point.
Amb. Marc Ginsberg had these suggestions, and they also seem like worthy considerations to me:

"If the Administration continues on its present, relatively passive course and shirks America's duty and responsibility to confront the Russian Syrian arms transfers with tougher resolve, it won't be merely "leading from behind;" it will be turning its back on the growing humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.

So what can the U.S. realistically do without landing marines on the beaches of Syria:

1. Call Russia's bluff. Force a UN Security Council resolution vote demanding an arms embargo on Syria and dare the Russians veto it.

2. Expel Russia from the G-8 until it ceases arms transfer to Syria. Freeze Russia out of some other international gatherings and forums for good measure.

3. Straightjacket the Central Bank of Syria by completely cutting off its access to U.S. and European banking facilities.

4. Develop support for an international indictment in the International Criminal Court against the Assad regime's leadership for crimes against humanity.

5. Encourage Arab League efforts to organize a military supply airlift through southern Turkey to provide additional support to the Free Syrian Army.

6. Officially delegitimize the Assad regime by recognizing the Syrian National Council as the new, legitimate government of Syria, and galvanize European Union and Arab League nations to follow suit.

7. Provide additional financial and diplomatic support to the Syrian National Council to form a Syrian government in exile and have its leadership publicly embraced in western and Arab capitals.

8. Work with Turkey to declare and enforce a humanitarian zone in northern Syria to provide shelter for Syrians fleeing the fighting."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amb-marc-g...64530.html

[Ted King]

It's seems likely that Turkey would play a big role in any action that might make a difference in stopping the bloodshed in Syria:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Turk...57454.html

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
I don't think "nothing" is an acceptable approach at this point.
Amb. Marc Ginsberg had these suggestions, and they also seem like worthy considerations to me:

"If the Administration continues on its present, relatively passive course and shirks America's duty and responsibility to confront the Russian Syrian arms transfers with tougher resolve, it won't be merely "leading from behind;" it will be turning its back on the growing humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.

So what can the U.S. realistically do without landing marines on the beaches of Syria:

1. Call Russia's bluff. Force a UN Security Council resolution vote demanding an arms embargo on Syria and dare the Russians veto it.

2. Expel Russia from the G-8 until it ceases arms transfer to Syria. Freeze Russia out of some other international gatherings and forums for good measure.

3. Straightjacket the Central Bank of Syria by completely cutting off its access to U.S. and European banking facilities.

4. Develop support for an international indictment in the International Criminal Court against the Assad regime's leadership for crimes against humanity.

5. Encourage Arab League efforts to organize a military supply airlift through southern Turkey to provide additional support to the Free Syrian Army.

6. Officially delegitimize the Assad regime by recognizing the Syrian National Council as the new, legitimate government of Syria, and galvanize European Union and Arab League nations to follow suit.

7. Provide additional financial and diplomatic support to the Syrian National Council to form a Syrian government in exile and have its leadership publicly embraced in western and Arab capitals.

8. Work with Turkey to declare and enforce a humanitarian zone in northern Syria to provide shelter for Syrians fleeing the fighting."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amb-marc-g...64530.html

Lots of interesting ideas there. I'm not sure there's a lot of evidence that the Syrian National Council, initially formed five months ago, has the wherewithal to function as a transitional government. It's a start, but let's not imagine that the resistance is nearly as well-formed in Syria as it was in Libya or Egypt. It's not.

Another giant mistake would be to think that Assad's military will be toppled quickly. It is a powerful and well-armed force. Merely arming defectors and volunteers to the teeth will not fell this foe. The "Free Syrian Army" is smaller and about as well organized as the Libyan rebels, who would not have succeeded if they had only received arms. It took several months of concerted and sustained air support to win that war.

Cutting off bank access and financial ties is smart. The U.S. is hardly a smart choice as cheerleader for ICC indictments, but perhaps others could be brought to the fore on that front. Not that ICC indictments have ever been effective in removing a regime from power, but it makes everyone feel a little bit better, right?

Embarrassing the Russians at the UNSC simply won't work, and anyone who thinks that the U.S. can shame Putin/Mevedev into changing their positions ignores history at their peril. Better to work back channels to get support for a different resolution, and apply pressure to get arms deliveries stopped.

I'm all in favor of creating safe zones and humanitarian support. And the more Turkey is involved, the better - for everyone.

[Carnos Jax]

Very well said rj, especially about Points 1 & 2.