Syria

[chrishansenhome]

You will undoubtedly have read and heard about the situation in Syria. I won't rehash any of it.

This last week the UK Parliament dealt a blow to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, by voting against joining with the United States and other countries in striking Syria with missiles as retaliation for the barbaric use of poison gas on its people. I agonised about this for days, eventually deciding that a military strike was not a good way to get this behaviour on the part of Bashir al-Assad and his government and army to stop. So, I'm glad that my government and armed forces will not be participating.

However, the United States, with the assistance of cheese-eating surrender-monkeys…er…their oldest allies, the French, and other countries, seems ready to go for bombardment. It will undoubtedly happen.

I wonder what it is that the bombardment will achieve. Will it achieve the goal of toppling Assad and his government? Probably not. Will it kill or take out of commission key members of the government or armed forces of Syria, or its Hezbollah allies? Probably not. Will it shake the resolve of Russia to continue to supply Syria with arms? Probably not. Will it assist the rebels to overcome the Syrian Army and seize control of Syria thus beginning the process of turning it into a democracy? I would be quite surprised if it did.

What it will achieve is two-fold. In Syria, it will create more instability and upset, and lead to more loss of life. In New York, it will emphasise the principle that the United Nations, as currently constituted, is unable to act as the conscience and enforcer of decency in international relations. No resolution condemning Syria will ever pass the Security Council.

The post-war system of world power, where five nations—the victors in World War 2—ran the world and the rest of the nations (and colonies) were just minor onlookers. is now obsolete. The veto is no longer reflecting the reality, where instead of around 50 nations there are more than 200, spanning the globe. Britain and France are no longer world powers with a network of colonies; Russia is no longer the Soviet Union, and is powerful only as far as its oligarchs and natural resources will go; China is now an economic superpower but does not have the political will or the military reach to be a political or military world power. The United States is both an economic and military superpower, unique in the 21st century, but is seen by many to be overbearing, imperial, and too willing to propose military solutions to world problems.

What's to be done, then, about Syria? The UN is no longer the way to settle international disputes. One side or the other will block any action. Unilateral military action will be counterproductive in the long run (see: Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam).

As a person with religious beliefs and views, my first option is prayer. It doesn't directly help Syrians, but it helps calm my mind and heart.

My second option is to embargo Syria as far as weapons supply goes. Some way would have to be found to keep weapons from flowing into Syria. I don't know how this will be done, but our sending lots of arms to the rebels and Russia sending lots of arms to the government of Syria will not solve the problem.

My last option is to expose the flaws in the UN yet again. World government is not the answer, but a world governance body like the UN but without the veto needs to be created or assembled. So the question I pose is: how can this be brought about?

Syria, I fear, will continue to sink into the muck created by its government, and containment of its land borders and a refusal to have any relations with it as a state is probably the best we can do.

Comments

[roosterbear.livejournal.com]

It's a disaster waiting to happen, as far as Western involvement. On the one side, the repressive regime that's (probably) gassed its own people. On the other side, a collection of factions, many of whom are aligned with Al Qaeda. And the innocents in the middle, who get blown up as collateral damage while the two sides sling it out, will also probably suffer in any US-lead attack.

I understand that silence and/or inaction in the face of chemical weapon use is a kind of acceptance and endorsement of same, but just throwing bombs into a pre-existing clusterfuck, without an achievable goal that at least furthers US interests, helps the people caught in the crossfire, or even stops the further use of chemical weapons, is a mistake. There's no way to have a measured response that will do more than blow shit up and stir up an already messy scenario in the next day, or next week.

[zenhiao.livejournal.com]

no one seems to have a good solution to this so prayer might be our only "good" option.

i doubt it would be possibly for any power to perform a strike so surgical that no innocent lives are lost (just look at the record of drones in other countries). so it seems rather futile that the US response to the mass slaughter of innocents is to slaughter a few more along the way.

and as others have asked is killing innocents by poison gas any worse than killing innocents by cruise missiles and drones? either way the innocents are the ones doing the dying.

Syria

[am0.livejournal.com]

There is no credible evidence that the Syrian government gassed the rebels. The far more plausible account is that the rebels intercepted a shipment of poison gas from Saudi Arabia to Al Queda and, not knowing how to use it, managed to set it off and poison themselves. That news report is being suppressed because big money interests want to clear their inventory of old weapons again and have been looking for an excuse.

I don't believe our government because of the extent to which they are controlled by our corporations.

[into-the-wild.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing.