If Bashar al-Assad Uses Chemical Weapons, Should We Intervene in Syria? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 08:22:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  If Bashar al-Assad Uses Chemical Weapons, Should We Intervene in Syria? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: If Bashar al-Assad's government uses chemical weapons against the rebels, should we intervene?
#1
Democrat -Yes
 
#2
Democrat -No
 
#3
Republican -Yes
 
#4
Republican -No
 
#5
independent/third party -Yes
 
#6
independent/third party -No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 44

Author Topic: If Bashar al-Assad Uses Chemical Weapons, Should We Intervene in Syria?  (Read 2132 times)
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,218


« on: December 04, 2012, 08:21:24 PM »

Part of me thinks that if push comes to shove, Russia and China will somehow not veto a UN resolution authorizing NATO intervention in Syria, to allow the US to charge head-on into a cluster[inks] which will put it in a lose-lose situation. Russia can claim the moral high ground on the Middle East, and the US will be too bogged down to try to "pivot" to Asia.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,218


« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2012, 01:48:41 PM »

Last I checked there are six foreign powers who are deeply involved in Syria: NATO/the west, Israel, Turkey, the Gulf Arab Sunni states, Russia, and Iran.

If NATO directly intervenes even if it's just lobbing bombs on Assad's positions like in Libya this opens a huge can of worms. Unlike in Libya there are sectarian dimensions, and unlike Libya most the country isn't a pile of sand. Acting as a referee in Syria is guaranteed to deeply annoy one or more of an extremely crucial ally of the west in some form or another.

Aggressively opposing Assad will will support from the Gulf Arab states, yet will cause Islamists to creep up to Israel's northern border, which has the potential to invite Israeli intervention regardless of US opposition. Plus, Assad has already deliberately allowed the Syrian Kurds to gain strength as a middle finger to Erdogan. If the Kurds gain strength even further this will destabilize both Turkey and Iraq (though the latter is already an Iranian client state anyways).

Merely dropping bombs like in Libya risks mission creep which already was happening in Libya. Eventually those who were saved by the western intervention will demand that the west stay on, and it will be very difficult to leave in this situation.

Actually trying to act as a referee is laughably naive, since Assad's opponents will accuse the west of complicity and treachery.

I think the least bad scenario would be if Assad and his acolytes retreat to the Alawite region and abandon the rest of Syria, and continue to claim to be the only legal government of all Syria, exactly like Chang Kai Shek retreating to Taiwan and claiming to be the only legal government of all China. It could be done by secret deals with the US and Russia. The rest of Syria might be able to pull off a relatively peaceful Libya-like transition to elections and a new regime. Though the Kurdish region is probably lost for good. In any case Erdogan must be kicking himself in the groin.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,218


« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2012, 09:22:08 PM »

Latest reports claim Assad is firing Scud missiles at rebels themselves. An Al Jazeera analyst says Assad is down to one armoured division and two infantry divisions "maybe". Perhaps the moment of truth is coming?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 13 queries.