UN chief renews call on Syria to end crackdown on protesters

[Credo]

It's probably best of bad options for the UN to be the lead agency in this situation. The idea of NATO or any coalition of Western countries is going to be a big problem.

A better option would be for neighbors and those with positive influence in Syria to map out a strategy for dealing with the situation, but that's not likely to happen.

[chuckd]

Syrian opposition groups are requesting a "no fly" zone from the UN.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203405504576599150728062020.html

Any thoughts or opinion on this development?

Let me give this one a shot. I do believe you proposed a third and final step of NATO creating a no-fly zone over Syria so please permit me to offer some information.

1. It won't work. To get UN sanctions for a no-fly zone one would need a coalition, including Arab countries. Even if Russia and China did not veto it, no Arab country would join in a coalition against Syria.

2. France/Italy/UK/EU get nothing from Syria so they have no economic reason to take any action.

3. Arab nations will not support NATO action as they did in Libya. Everybody disliked Qadhafi because he was such a loose cannon, but they weren't really afraid of him.

4. Most Arab nations are separated from Libya by Egypt but Syria is their next door neighbor. It's OK to make the neighbor one block over a little angry but don't mess with the guy across the street.

5. France, Italy and the UK do not have the aircraft platforms to rain down ordinance on Syria...and they no longer have the ordinance for it anyway.

6. The US could bring another carrier battle group into the region and handle the no-fly zone but I don't think there is one chance in a million that Obama will take another chance as he did in Libya. He sidestepped Congress once and seems to have gotten away with it. He won't chance it again and will never obtain Congressional approval for another middle east adventure.

7. Russia and China will never stand for UN action to take place and will likely even block sanctions.

8. One of the scenarios for a no-fly zone was for a ten kilometer wide zone on the northern Syrian border with Turkey, which is nearly laughable. With Turkey's Erdogan trying to set himself up as the leader of the next Ottoman Empire it is unlikely he would provide any cooperation and would probably balk at anything the UN would try to do near his border. He might even try and treat the Syrian refugees much as he treats his Kurdish neighbors, and we all know that is not nice.

9. Syria and Assad are best buddies with Iran. Iran is such a loose cannon they might do anything and it would seem likely you could end up having to bomb them as well. Hmmm. Not an entirely unpleasant thought but somewhat dangerous in today's market. Iran is already making noises about patrolling the US Atlantic coast with their frigates and diesel submarines so it looks like the East Coast of the US will have to go to wartime blackout conditions with that threat around as it is. We wouldn't want them to unleash their navy in the Mediterranean, now would we. Iran is still a threat but the threat in this case is manageable with air and naval power, but the US is not in position to take on both Syria and Iran now.

10.The UN shot their wad in Libya. They have only NATO and the US to do their bidding in this case and both parties do not have the stomach or the weaponry for the fight.

Now, you may ask, what would I do. Since diplomacy isn't working and sanctions are a joke as Russia, China, Iran and half the known world would ignore them, the only recourse for the overthrow of the Assad regime is to provide hardware to a rebel group to fight the regime, ala Libya. Had we supported the Iranian uprising verbally and with hardware, we might not be in the extreme situation we are in with Iran today. Now we have a do-over and have a shot at getting it right the second time around. Odds are we won't get it right this time either.

We could send our Justice Department (Attorney General Holder) and his 'fast and furious' weapons delivery system to Syria with a boatload of guns and help the rebels out.

And that, kind sir, is the only way I see as a possibility of getting rid of Assad.

I have no links to provide you so don't bother asking.

Now you may fire away, but please keep a civil discourse. Sarcasm is an unnecessary ingredient.

[up-country_sinclair]

It's probably best of bad options for the UN to be the lead agency in this situation. The idea of NATO or any coalition of Western countries is going to be a big problem.

A better option would be for neighbors and those with positive influence in Syria to map out a strategy for dealing with the situation, but that's not likely to happen.

These are well thought out opinions presented in a refreshingly succinct manner.

Yes, I agree that many of Syria's neighbors will not be inclined to be an influence of positive change. This is regrettable, but it is the situation we find ourselves in; and that situation is untenable. That's why I believe UN or NATO action (while certainly problematic) will be the best available and most realistic option going forward.

[Credo]

Thanks.

I think Chuckd's points are very valid and well thought out.

Syria has been such a pariah for so long, and a Jr. to Iran, that quite a number of Wester countries have little stake in Syria. Most country's humanitarian efforts, are geared toward countries in which they have business interests. There are exceptions, of course. So there is no special concern about the death toll, just a lot of hand wringing and teeth nashing.

Massive movements of Syrians crossing international borders is what will bring action.

Syria doesn't have an organized opposition which could easily be supported.

[geriatrickid]

Unless one is willing to accept another Middle East war, one would not position any foreign military forces near Syria. The first reaction from Syria if faced with outside military would be to launch an unprovoked attack on Israel. This would give Iran an excuse to also attack Israel. Then the Palestinian arabs, being the champions of bad political decisions, would launch armed attacks. And bingo we have a lovely new war with Israel being the scapegoat, much as Iraq launched scuds at Israel when the UN supported forces acted to liberate Kuwait.

Sanctions cannot work because Turkey and Iran do not support them. As long as there are strong economic reasons for Turkey and Iran to profit from the situation, the Syrian government gets carte blanche to do as it pleases.

Why anyone would expect Nato or the USA to assume responsible for cleaning up the arabs own mess again is beyond comprehension. The Chinese, Russians and members of TVF have all condemned the western presence in Libya. Fine, Let the arabs, Russia, China and Turkey deal with it. I supposes this means no action since it is normal to have violent insurrections in the aforementioned countries. Hopefully, the west learns from the mistakes in Libya and follows the same position as the arabs, China and Russia. Tut tut in public, and just sit back and let the arabs kill each other.

[Credo]

Well, GK, that explains the reticence for any kind of action.

So what appears as hypocracy may be laced with wisdom and prudence.

[Steely Dan]

GK, Whilst I agree with much of your analysis I would observe war with Iran may be unavoidable in which case Syria will no doubt become embroiled in matters along with Israel.

http://www.debka.com/article/21346/

Incidentally the Iranians announced they intend to position their navy just off U.S territorial waters. As I've observed before Iran are spoiling for a fight due to reasons of scripture as oppose to logic.

[up-country_sinclair]

GK, Whilst I agree with much of your analysis I would observe war with Iran may be unavoidable in which case Syria will no doubt become embroiled in matters along with Israel.

http://www.debka.com/article/21346/

Incidentally the Iranians announced they intend to position their navy just off U.S territorial waters. As I've observed before Iran are spoiling for a fight due to reasons of scripture as oppose to logic.

Did you get this pearl of insight from DEBKA?

DEBKAfile (Hebrew: תיק דבקה‎) is a Jerusalem-based English language Israeli open source military intelligence website

Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics," adding that Debka had partnered with the right-wing news site WorldNetDaily for a weekly subscription product.[3] Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debka_file

Debka.

Edited September 29, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Steely Dan]

GK, Whilst I agree with much of your analysis I would observe war with Iran may be unavoidable in which case Syria will no doubt become embroiled in matters along with Israel.

http://www.debka.com/article/21346/

Incidentally the Iranians announced they intend to position their navy just off U.S territorial waters. As I've observed before Iran are spoiling for a fight due to reasons of scripture as oppose to logic.

Did you get this pearl of insight from DEBKA?

DEBKAfile (Hebrew: תיק דבקה‎) is a Jerusalem-based English language Israeli open source military intelligence website

Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics," adding that Debka had partnered with the right-wing news site WorldNetDaily for a weekly subscription product.[3] Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debka_file

Debka.

So you would rather trust Wikipedia eh? Lets just say that with the so called Arab spring they have been far more on the ball than the mainstream media outlets.

Incidentally Assad's regime is not too bothered about provoking the U.S either it would seem.

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsworld.php?id=616787

Edited September 30, 2011 by Steely Dan

[Ulysses G.]

10% correct information is a lot better track record than some of the crazy links that have beeen posted here from the opposite point of view.

[Steely Dan]

Here is another angle. Syrian Christians backing Assad, not because he's nice, but Sharia would be even worse for them, now where have we heard this before? Egypt, Tunisia, Libya? Still dark skinned Christians don't seem to be very high on the priority list with Obama's foreign policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/middleeast/fearing-change-syria-christians-back-bashar-al-assad.html?_r=1&sq=Syria&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=all

For many Syrian Christians, Mr. Assad remains predictable in a region where unpredictability has driven their brethren from war-racked places like Iraq and Lebanon, and where others have felt threatened in postrevolutionary Egypt.

They fear that in the event the president falls, they may be subjected to reprisals at the hands of a conservative Sunni leadership for what it sees as Christian support of the Assad family. They worry that the struggle to dislodge Mr. Assad could turn into a civil war, unleashing sectarian bloodshed in a country where minorities, ethnic and religious, have found a way to coexist for the most part.

[up-country_sinclair]

10% correct information is a lot better track record than some of the crazy links that have beeen posted here

Perhaps, but I wouldn't know. I don't click on "crazy links" or propaganda youtube videos.

However, if you had bothered to read the quote closely enough, you would have seen that "Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable". Here, let me break it down for you: Debka doesn't even make 10%.

Debka

[Scott]

A series of off-topic posts and quotes of the posts have been deleted. I think we can dispense with the comparisons of who has got the best/worst link to support their view.

[chuckd]

Let me give this one a shot. I do believe you proposed a third and final step of NATO creating a no-fly zone over Syria so please permit me to offer some information.

1. It won't work. To get UN sanctions for a no-fly zone one would need a coalition, including Arab countries. Even if Russia and China did not veto it, no Arab country would join in a coalition against Syria.

2. France/Italy/UK/EU get nothing from Syria so they have no economic reason to take any action.

3. Arab nations will not support NATO action as they did in Libya. Everybody disliked Qadhafi because he was such a loose cannon, but they weren't really afraid of him.

4. Most Arab nations are separated from Libya by Egypt but Syria is their next door neighbor. It's OK to make the neighbor one block over a little angry but don't mess with the guy across the street.

5. France, Italy and the UK do not have the aircraft platforms to rain down ordinance on Syria...and they no longer have the ordinance for it anyway.

6. The US could bring another carrier battle group into the region and handle the no-fly zone but I don't think there is one chance in a million that Obama will take another chance as he did in Libya. He sidestepped Congress once and seems to have gotten away with it. He won't chance it again and will never obtain Congressional approval for another middle east adventure.

7. Russia and China will never stand for UN action to take place and will likely even block sanctions.

8. One of the scenarios for a no-fly zone was for a ten kilometer wide zone on the northern Syrian border with Turkey, which is nearly laughable. With Turkey's Erdogan trying to set himself up as the leader of the next Ottoman Empire it is unlikely he would provide any cooperation and would probably balk at anything the UN would try to do near his border. He might even try and treat the Syrian refugees much as he treats his Kurdish neighbors, and we all know that is not nice.

9. Syria and Assad are best buddies with Iran. Iran is such a loose cannon they might do anything and it would seem likely you could end up having to bomb them as well. Hmmm. Not an entirely unpleasant thought but somewhat dangerous in today's market. Iran is already making noises about patrolling the US Atlantic coast with their frigates and diesel submarines so it looks like the East Coast of the US will have to go to wartime blackout conditions with that threat around as it is. We wouldn't want them to unleash their navy in the Mediterranean, now would we. Iran is still a threat but the threat in this case is manageable with air and naval power, but the US is not in position to take on both Syria and Iran now.

10.The UN shot their wad in Libya. They have only NATO and the US to do their bidding in this case and both parties do not have the stomach or the weaponry for the fight.

Now, you may ask, what would I do. Since diplomacy isn't working and sanctions are a joke as Russia, China, Iran and half the known world would ignore them, the only recourse for the overthrow of the Assad regime is to provide hardware to a rebel group to fight the regime, ala Libya. Had we supported the Iranian uprising verbally and with hardware, we might not be in the extreme situation we are in with Iran today. Now we have a do-over and have a shot at getting it right the second time around. Odds are we won't get it right this time either.

We could send our Justice Department (Attorney General Holder) and his 'fast and furious' weapons delivery system to Syria with a boatload of guns and help the rebels out.

And that, kind sir, is the only way I see as a possibility of getting rid of Assad.

I have no links to provide you so don't bother asking.

Now you may fire away, but please keep a civil discourse. Sarcasm is an unnecessary ingredient.

I hope you can count higher than ten otherwise I'll have to mark my own golf scorecard.

My capability to count has NEVER gone higher than 10 on the links. A scorecard swap would be safe.

I am pleased you read the post. I am forced to presume the member that previously seemed so critical of my lack of opinions hasn't done so. (Oops, there's that nasty emoticon again.)

[chuckd]

This very interesting article just picked up off the internet:

______________________________________________________

Iran to Syria: Save regime and preserve alliance

By BRIAN MURPHY - Associated Press | AP – 59 mins ago

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) —

The article says in part...

It's Tehran's version of tough love: Pressing Assad to do what it takes to stay in power and preserve one of Iran's most important relationship in the Middle East. "You have a decades-old strategic alliance on the ropes," said David Schenker, a Syrian affairs analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "No doubt Iran is very concerned."

But Assad appears to be following his own rules in trying to ride out a mass revolt that has now spread into the security forces. Government troops have waged relentless crackdowns on opposition protesters, as well as police and soldiers who have turned against the crackdown.

Iran is in the unfamiliar role of nervous bystander in Syria — a foothold on Israel's border and a critical conduit to Tehran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Syria also adds to Iran's worry about inspiration for its own internal opposition, which has been mostly dormant since the Arab revolts began in Tunisia.

There is little chance Iran would risk the international fallout and send large-scale military forces to aid Assad, although it's likely that Iran has boosted its cadre of security advisers and other envoys in Damascus. Instead, Iran seeks to coax Assad to offer some kind of tension-easing dialogue or at least pull back on the attacks.

Entire article here: http://news.yahoo.com/iran-syria-save-regime-preserve-alliance-070117563.html

[cdnvic]

Inferring that people are being paid to post their rightful opinions will result in posting rights removals. 3 posts removed, one person temporarily sidelined.