I keep getting asked "What's YOUR solution for Syria"?

[cali]

Aside from the fact that whatever plan I do or don't have is irrelevant to reality, I think it's important to recognize that sometimes there is no viable solution.

I believe that's true regarding Syria.

Sometimes all that can be done is whatever does the least harm.

firing missiles into Syria doesn't meet that criteria. If it degrades Assad's forces enough that he either flees or is defeated by the rebel forces, what follows will be no better than what currently exists. The rebel factions will battle for power. There's the real possibility of genocide targeting Alawites who are 12% of Syria's population. There's real possibility of ethnic cleansing of Christians. It's all very well to say the U.S. would support the FSA, but the FSA is fragmented and it too has a lot of religious fundamentalists within its ranks.

If the a missile attack doesn't have a decisive impact on Assad's forces, he may ramp up attacks, partly as a response to the U.S. The civil war will continue.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Any number of things could happen whether the U.S. bombs Syria or not. None of them are good. Even if the attacks dissuaded the regime from *using chemical weapons again, that would hardly mean that it was any kind of a solution, and that's an awfully big "if".

Sometimes there just aren't viable solutions.


*yes, I'm stipulating that Assad was the party that perpetrated Ghouta, though frankly it makes no difference on my position against bombing Syria.

[11 Bravo]

1. Yup, I don't have a solution, I have a position; and that position is ...

to stay the fuck out of a Civil War in the Middle East.

[deutsey]

3. +1

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. I liken it to watching a rapist and a murderer having a knife fight.

I'll have to be forgiven for refusing to pick a side.

[Aerows]

40. That's exactly how I feel.

If that makes me cold-hearted, so be it.

[Paper Roses]

45. Agree 100%. No more blood and treasure in the Middle east.

We must take care of our own . We are not the police for the world.

[Iggo]

50. I am one hundred percent with you on that.

Stay the fuck out of it.

[phantom power]

2. I reject the premise -- nobody is obligated to even seek out a solution.

I don't have to have a solution. The United States doesn't have to have a solution. Up until a couple weeks ago, nobody gave a shit about "solving" Syria.

The world is filled to the fucking brim with human evil and tragedy every day, but every few years, we are all mysteriously expected to go apeshit over some particular evil and/or tragedy chosen for us by our leaders, for purposes we aren't allowed to know about.

I'm fucking done with it.

[Johonny]

4. Perhaps at this point Obama has done the best solution

1)He has pointed out that he does not agree with how the Syrian government is handling its people.
2)He has stated he is willing to act to help stabilize the situation.
3)He has asked for international help in putting pressure on the government
4)He has asked for domestic help in putting pressure on the government

I think Obama made it clear that he does not condone chemical weapon use and thinks the international community should step up and try to do something. Perhaps the situation is too labored by the post Bush years where the international community and the domestic community are too fractioned and paranoid to act but he at least stated for history where he stands on chemical weapons. I don't think he's worried about his image historically on that point. You rather be Obama and not get authority to act than say Rand Paul who isn't interested in anyone else but himself in the world. What happens based on the stance is certainly more in doubt. You are probably right the current world situation post Bush probably makes it impossible for a viable solution to take place. But it doesn't hurt to say and continue to say chemical weapons should not be condoned.

[cali]

10. bombing won't stabilize the situation in Syria. Even the admin isn't claiming that.

Perhaps this has more to do with the entirety of the U.S. history in the middle east than just the bush years. As for his opposition to chemical weapons, I see no reason to believe that he isn't heartfelt about that, but that doesn't justify a unilateral act of war.

[Skidmore]

12. I tend to agree with you.

I think that we are at a point where we need to either honor treaties and accords or tear them up and sit down with the rest of the world and figure out how we can all inhabit this planet in a manner that doesn't destroy it. Furthermore, I think he is forcing Congress to step up and do its job.

[atreides1]

34. Syria isn't a signatory to that treaty!

And where exactly does it say in the treaty that military action can be taken against a non-signatory for use of chemical weapons?

Key points of the CWC

Prohibition of production and use of chemical weapons
Destruction (or monitored conversion to other functions) of chemical weapons production facilities
Destruction of all chemical weapons (including chemical weapons abandoned outside the state parties territory)
Assistance between State Parties and the OPCW in the case of use of chemical weapons
An OPCW inspection regime for the production of chemicals which might be converted to chemical weapons
International cooperation in the peaceful use of chemistry in relevant areas

Nope nothing about the use of military action...though there is this key point: Assistance between State Parties and the OPCW in the case of use of chemical weapons.

Just my two cents worth.

[Skidmore]

48. I know that Syria isn't a signatory to that treaty, however,

I think that the power dynamics in the world are very different than they were in mid 20th century and that there is significant work to be done to account for those shifts in power and players.

[Isoldeblue]

18. +1 n/t

[NuclearDem]

5. There are no good answers to this.

But that tends to happen when a combination of ignorant imperialistic cartography and sectarian strife blends with old Cold War tensions and actions to destabilize a region.

If we don't want to face these no-win scenarios, we should maybe consider not directly engineering them in the first place.

[JaneyVee]

6. SOMETHING must be done. There must be a solution to this crisis.

[cali]

7. but in reality, there just isn't always a viable solution

and certainly military strikes aren't a solution to the Syrian civil war.

[JaneyVee]

8. Maybe we can just blow up all their fighter jets so they can't drop napalm on

School playgrounds anymore?

[cali]

14. from what I've read that isn't possible without causing

serious casualties to civilians. There are some 20 military airbases in Syria as well as several airports where military jets may have been moved.

Killing a lot of civilians to prevent civilians being killed isn't a real option, nor should it be.

[JaneyVee]

25. Set up a green zone for civilians, refugees, and humanitarian aid. Then only target

Military jets and tanks until Syria's army is just a bunch of guys with nothing left but rubber band finger guns.

[progressoid]

43. Set up a green zone?

Who's gonna do that? We aint putting boots on the ground remember?

[pinboy3niner]

49. Enforcing a Green Zone would require a NFZ and air power...

...meaning much greater military intervention. That's a task on a scale much bigger than cruise missiles can handle.

[Marr]

54. You only have the tip to work with, remember. /nt

[maxsolomon]

27. you know that we can put a bomb precisely on a runway and people don't live on runways, right?

that strategy is not a "solution", but it likely won't cause civilian casualties, either. unless they go lay on the runway as human shields.

[progressoid]

31. Human shields? They are being planned.

http://www.syrianews.cc/prevent-war-human-shields-syria/

[Aerows]

41. And what about their air defense systems?

Excuse me for not being enthused about putting our pilots in harm's way because Syrians are fighting with one another. Neither side is worth fighting for as far as I can tell, and there is no such thing as a war without civilian casualties when it is being fought in the middle of civilians. That's just wishful thinking.

[maxsolomon]

57. this isn't about SIDES. and there are already thousands of civilian casualties.

this is about Chemical Weapons. the Assad regime used Sarin gas on civilians. do we let that go with only a sternly worded letter from Ban Ki Moon? because that's what the UN will do, at best.

no one's expecting you to be ENTHUSED. fuck, Obama's not ENTHUSED. hell, he's probably hoping that the know-nothings in Congress vote no as usual.

[sibelian]

32. There's no reason at all to suppose that there's a solution.

Just because you want something doesn't mean it exists.

[JHB]

63. Well there's the problem right there. Most of the SOMETHINGS that "must" be done...

...either aren't as solution to the crisis, or the just create a different crisis. And a lot of them have a better-than-average chance of doing both.

Why don't you organize a modern-day Abe Lincoln Brigade, one dedicated to creating a free and democratic Syria where neither dictators nor religious zealots end up in charge. That's "SOMETHING".

Maybe you don't think that particular "SOMETHING" is such a good idea. Well, guess what: Pretty much all of the other options are no better.

[HardTimes99]

9. Good, honest, forthright OP. Sometimes the best thng to do is 'nothing'. Such is

frequently the case when it is another country's civil war that rages. Taking sides in a civil war, as we learned in Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iraq and Afghanistan, is fraught with peril.

[libdem4life]

11. Absolutely. What today looks like Righteous Indignation and "Merciful Intervention"

(mix in the infighting amongst numerous Rebel Factions) becomes tomorrow's graveyard...in many ways. God/Allah himself has hands tied behind their proverbial backs. These are millennial hatreds, vengeance, blood feuds, religious genocides and yes, the murder of children...both sides have dead children.

I voted twice for Obama, am a lifelong Democrat, and believe that this misstep will haunt the rest of his term and his place in history, especially as the first African-American president. Nobody expected much of GWB, the silver spoon spawn. Yawn.

But PBO is another matter. He matters. His administration matters. His participation in the very important role of the first non-white ruler of essentially The Western European bloc matters. Much rides on his shoulders. It's important to think past ego and red lines and more to the legacy of the US in the ME on his watch. Like it or not, he won't be allowed to have a "Kosovo".

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. My plan:

1. The international chemical war agency files a complaint with the UN security council on use of chemical weapons.

2. The UN Security Council passes a resolution condemning such use, and sending a message to Assad that another use will result in another Security Council resolution seeking military action. I think the Russians might be persuaded to get on board with this approach.

3. a. No more chemical weapons use, or
b. More chemical weapons use, followed by Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force.

A UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force is the only way the US can legally attack Syria.

[cali]

15. I think your plan makes a lot of sense. It would be interesting

to see a DU poll on support for it.

[jessie04]

24. Aint gonna happen......but nice theory.

Putin has already said that he blames the rebels.

He wont agree with the resolution and he sure as hell will never agree to authorizing force.

[pinboy3niner]

16. The "best" solution now is a negotiated political settlement that ends the carnage

Something the U.S. and others have been working for. It's difficult, but not impossible, and it offers the best humanitarian solution.

[meow2u3]

17. Put pressure on the Cayman Islands to freeze or confiscate Assad's assets

Then put pressure on Russia to freeze Assad's assets. Did I mention, FREEZE ALL ASSAD'S ASSETS???!!! Then put economic sanctions on the Assad regime; in other words, hit the Assad regime where it hurts the most--right in their wallets.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Are those asking you this actually claiming that bombing is a 'solution'? A final solution or

just a run of the mill solution?

[jessie04]

20. I'm impressed...an intelligent post.

Try this.... would you say the same thing if Assad or someone like Assad used Biologic or Nuclear weapons?

Or would you say like many of us.... that this cant go unanswered and we have to stand for something .

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Many DUers who are slobbering to bomb Syria are on record as opposing any relatiation against

Iran if Iran was to use a nuke on Israel. During the 2008 primary, Hillary said that if Iran dropped an nuke on Israel, we would obliterate them and the Obama ardent crowd nearly lost their minds over it. They said that it was wrong to threaten Iran with any talk like that, even if they DID destroy Tel Aviv we'd need a measured response. Samantha Power,now in the Obama administration, called Clinton a monster for saying that.
So your own cohort will not do well with a DU search for this subject, they may favor retaliation now, but back then they were wildly opposed to it.

[cali]

36. maybe someday I'll be able to say the same to you. Alas, it can't be re this post of yours

I prefer to stay grounded in the current reality. I can't speculate on what I'd believe should be done in in the vague and unlikely scenario of a leader of a nation using nukes. Far too many variables.

I find it difficult to respond to a string of cliches like "this can't go unanswered" and "we haven't to stand for something". Such tropes don't reflect an actual thought.

oh, and no there aren't many of you. Sentiment is overwhelmingly opposed to military strikes against Syria as laid out by SoS Kerry- not just on DU but across the country.

[jessie04]

42. I tried.

Too bad you can't see the future.

[cali]

46. lol. now you're claiming to see the future? back away from the crystal ball.

[frylock]

60. that one should back away from the crystal meth

[pinboy3niner]

51. Discretion is the better part of valor

The UN recognizes that military action can be appropriate to enforce international conventions and norms, but it is not the only response, nor is it appropriate in all cases.

And it may be the worst possible response when there is little confidence that military action can achieve its objective(s) and it aso carries grave risks of leading to a worse humanitarian crisis.

[Union Scribe]

58. Do all your answers to problems end with "BOOM"? nt

[kenny blankenship]

22. It's a question that proceeds from the viewpoint that all that is needed is for America to will it

and it shall be so. A curious point of view. Historical parallels certainly can be found - none particularly flattering.

[sendero]

23. I am amazed .

... but not amused at folks who think every wrong has a military solution. If we want to start a war with Russia and/or Iran, this would be the perfect way to do it.

Like any good doctor our motto should be "first, do no harm", but instead for many it is "bombs away".

[Benton D Struckcheon]

28. Do they assume Russia's ships are just going to sit there and watch?

That's the super big risk.
Beyond that, as I said in another thread, defeat would be bad enough, you know, Assad stays in power AND uses CW again, but victory could be a total disaster: Al Qaeda and affiliated Salafists get in and start massacring Alawites, Christians, Kurds, etc. to their heart's content.
Like someone else pointed out, the convention on Chemical Weapons specifically stipulates that violations be handled through the UN. That's their job. Let's present our case there, and fight it out there. Much better all around.

[Whisp]

29. irrelevant to reality

[cali]

39. well seeing as you choose not to worry your beautiful little mind about it and trust the

President to make the right decision, your nonsensical comment is perfect.

[Whisp]

55. you are such a consistent bucket of joy. n/t

[1-Old-Man]

30. I can think of two replies, you chose the one you like best.

The first one is short and simple, in this case we (as a nation) really don't have a problem that requires a solution. We have not been harmed by Syria and inaction will not make us more likely to be harmed that nation.

The Second answer is probably a bit better. If there really is no good solution then we must chose the course of action, or inaction, that benefits our country most. The expenditure of expensive war materials does not benefit us (taxpayers) simply because we were taxed in the first place to build then and will be taxed again to replace them. Also, considering that we have a clear history of escalating military involvement it is perfectly reasonable to assume that at some time in the conflict US Airmen, Sailors, Troops, and Marines will be involved directly and US lives will be lost, which is not of benefit to the nation. In defense of the actions the Administration wants the President tells us that our reputation will be harmed if we do not take action, but what he fails to either understand or mention is that as many people round the world will hate us more if we take this action as will hold us in greater esteem. And last, if we take this action it will further increase the number of enemies we have around the world and thus make travel for US citizens even less safe than it is now. So it seems to me that the possible harm that may come from our involvement far outweighs any good it might do us. So I say don't do it.

[Historic NY]

33. There is no solution, the UN with Arab League members should take the lead...

the killing will continue until enough are killed....its not going to end with a deposed Assad either.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

44. Like Lebanon,

it'll end when it ends. Not before.
Reagan sent the Marines there and all he did was get two or three hundred of them killed for literally nothing, which he then proceeded to cover up by the invasion of Grenada.

[DirkGently]

35. Same fallacy as "Solve terrorism or agree to Iraq."

One doesn't follow the other. We can't fix the Syrian civil war, or end the use of chemical weapons on the planet, through military intervention.

You can't bomb people into getting along or behaving ethically.

And, by the way, since when is an illegal, unilateral military strike on a country with whom we are not at war, the only possible way to "send a message" or a approach a human rights problem?

We can't work with the U.N.?

We don't have forms of diplomacy that don't involve missiles?

We are so stupid and violent that this is our only conceivable reaction to a serious issue?



How many times do we need to fail at this approach to comprehend that it's a bad approach?

[WilliamPitt]

37. Charlie Pierce on the topic, in the context of Markey's "present" vote.

"My own thoughts on the proposed Great Boom Boom are fairly well-known, but I have to admit, I think Markey's pretty close to what a lot of Americans are thinking about this whole thing: namely, that it's a perfect time to apply that ancient -- and sadly underused -- political principle defined as Fuck If I Know What To Do. As it happens, I think if you have to apply FIIKWTD, the best thing to do is nothing. Enlightened minds can disagree, but I'd rather have Markey's caution than the unwarranted certitude expressed by the administration, to say nothing of the unwarranted warmongering glee of Senator Angry Grampy and his sidekick, Senator Huckleberry J. Butchfella."

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ed-markeys-curious-vote-explained-090513

[Aerows]

38. I don't have a solution to Syria's problems

Thankfully, I don't live in Syria. I live in the US.

Instead of funding a war of choice, why don't we fund repairing our aging infrastructure, thereby putting millions of Americans back to work? You would accomplish two things - improve the economy by having an influx of money in the hands of those who have jobs again, and bridges don't fall down. Oh, not to mention we wouldn't be responsible for killing yet another bunch of people whose families will eventually attack us with the weapons we supply in retaliation.

Screw aiding Al-Qaeda for any reason, and helping the rebels will do just that.

[wandy]

53. +1 Yes. nt

[tsuki]

47. I am like Congress. I don't have a plan for

Syria like they don't have a plan for the US.

[felix_numinous]

52. Because so far actions overseas

have usually revealed, after the killing, a long list of people who profited off the deals made. So I think it is fair to know what one is AGAINST, when it comes to war profiteering, without knowing exactly what is a most fair and just response, right away.

It has occurred to me, this time around, how many voices come out of the woodwork to push the idea that we HAVE to respond. We don't have to respond, right away, or alone, or ever if other options become clear later.

The dichotomy, of being offered the false choice of supporting bombing or not, completely sidesteps any attempt to shift the perspective.

Americans have to start recognizing just how the armed FORCES and law enFORCEment, the militarization of our country, wishes to condition the public into compliance. Because they NEED soldiers and law enforcement personnel to carry out this militarization, without question.

What is sorely needed is for the American public to SAY NO to them, practice not going along with fighting--and with having our choices taken away--this time. Because, for now, we still have that right.

[Turbineguy]

56. Even if Assad did not do the chemical attack

you can certainly lay the refugee crisis at his door. Here's a guy who would have no qualms about filling cruise missile targets with civilians too.

For the US this attack is frought with risk.

Supposedly Assad has $1.5 billion in assets. Impound those to make him play nice.

I for one am tired of these stupid "send-a-message" choices that the US gets trapped in.

[Union Scribe]

59. I dunno why they ask for your plan

It's not like they have one besides 'step one: stuff blows up.' Good post though, cali.

[IDemo]

61. This has always been an irritating online meme to me

The idea that, no matter how large or complicated the issue and regardless of the possible fallout, every post that finds disagreement with a policy must offer a viable solution or be deemed an impotent whine. Reality often consists of situations that simply don't lend themselves to a neat and clean Jeopardy-like answer.

[bluedeathray]

62. The whole issue of International law violation

Should be pushed to the UN. In the case of Syria, it should have happened a long time ago. Certainly, following the use of chemical weapons.

If the UN is a toothless, meaningless organization, then let's expose it for what it is (or isn't) and move on. But dealing with these crises were precisely the reason that the UN was created in the first place.

Perhaps one of the reasons that the US Government is reluctant to lend legitimacy to that organization is because the UN's gaze would then fall on THIS country...

We are NOT the worlds police. It's so wrong on so many levels.

[Shankapotomus]

64. How about this solution?

If you are an innocent non-combatant in Syria, leave. Just get you and your family out any way you can. Let the warmongers have Syria to themselves. I would do the same if it happened here. The world is big. Find a more peaceful place and start fresh there.

[pampango]

66. That's a good idea. Many (2,000,000 - 10% of the population) have already done so. Your idea

does require a willingness on the part of other countries to accept these refugees. Other than Syria's neighbors there has not been much evidence of this (other than in Sweden which always seems to be open to refugees).

Besides the 2 million (1/2 of them children) who have fled the country, there is another 4,000,000+ (another 20+% of the population) who are internally displaced within Syria.this woul be the equivalent of 30 million Americans fleeing to Canada or Mexico and another 70 million living in refugee camps within the US. Kind of a big deal.

What should be done about Syria? First of all, do not ignore the suffering even though they are not Americans. I would not ignore suffering in Mississippi or Arizona and Syrians are just as human as Mississippians. Do our share, and get others to do theirs, to fully fund humanitarian efforts for the civilian refugees and IDP's there. That would take a fraction of the cost of a military strike.

After that they will have to negotiate a settlement in one of two directions. Either Syria remains intact and the government that emerges is based on majority and minority rights. Or, if they (the Sunni majority and/or the substantial Alawite/Shia/Christian minorities) are convinced that the Sunni majority cannot live peacefully with all the minority groups that make up much of the population, there will have to be some kind of partition. The last option is to keep the slaughter going until most Syrians are dead or refugees in other countries and someone emerges on top of an utterly destroyed country; Syria remains intact with a repressive dictatorship either of a Sunni majority repressing Alawites, Shia, Christians and other minorities or of minority groups repressing the majority Sunnis.

The first option is the best because, as a liberal, it is hard to favor any option that involves someone being repressed, but it looks very difficult to achieve given how long this conflict has gone on. And a US strike will likely make negotiations less likely not more likely.

The number of Syrians forced to seek shelter abroad since civil war began in March 2011 passed the 2 million mark on Tuesday with no sign of the outflow ending soon.

"This trend is nothing less than alarming, representing a jump of almost 1.8 million people in 12 months," UNHCR said. One year ago today, the number of Syrians registered as refugees or awaiting registration stood at about 230,670 people.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres said Syria had become "a disgraceful humanitarian calamity with suffering and displacement unparalleled in recent history." He added that "the only solace is the humanity shown by the neighboring countries in welcoming and saving the lives of so many refugees."

The 2 million figure represents Syrians who have registered as refugees or who are pending registration. As of the end August this comprised 110,000 in Egypt, 168,000 in Iraq, 515,000 in Jordan, 716,000 in Lebanon and 460,000 in Turkey. Some 52 per cent of this population are children aged 17 years or below. UNHCR announced only days ago that the number of Syrian child refugees had exceeded 1 million.

A further 4.25 million people are displaced inside Syria, according to data from the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Taken together, these numbers – amounting to more than 6 million people – mean that more Syrians are now forcibly displaced than people from any other country.

UNHCR is active in Syria and is leading the humanitarian response to the refugee crisis in each of the surrounding countries. Humanitarian agencies are worryingly under-supported, with receipt of only 47 per cent of funds required to meet basic refugee needs.

http://www.unhcr.org/522495669.html

[LWolf]

65. At least some are asking,

instead of trying to spread the idea that no military action means doing nothing at all.

I agree that there may not BE viable solutions.