[ibrow]

Yesterday my wife and I were discussing the UK vote on intervening in Syria. It is such a horrible plight for people trapped in the middle of this, that both options of going in or not going in are equally awful.

The conclusion was that we don't know what the right answer is, but there must be some better way. We've got to stop thinking that military action is the only alternative.

We need to seriously do some bigger, different thinking. Possibly the UK granting opening it's doors to anyone who wants to flee this hell? I don't know.

Initiatives like Hire Programmers from Syria are a great start to thinking differently. I have no idea if it will be successful at achieving its goals or not, but I still applaud the effort.

Well done, and good luck.

[devx]

The right thing would be to convince Assad to offer a truce, step down, and allow a democratic election to happen. He'd have to be given protection, too, otherwise he'd never agree to stop, because he'd fear too much for his life.

Of course, even if they do convince Assad of that, it doesn't mean things will go smoothly. The "rebels" might still be upset if they lose the election, which is why it's so important UN or whoever needs to guarantee fair elections. It's the least they can do to appease the rebels, so they don't want to start the civil war all over again. They could even guarantee some sort of remuneration from the state for all the people who lost a family member in the war.

This is the least violent, and best solution for everyone involved.

[rdl]

IMO the right thing to do would be to solve just the chemical weapon problem, and solve it in the most limited way possible.

Have Assad escrow his chemical forces with the Russians at the Russian naval base in Syria (Tartus), on the basis of "you may have lost control of your forces; they must be kept safe so there will be no unauthorized use."

Other than that, focus purely on helping the civilians. I dislike both Assad and the rebels (the AQ/etc. groups), and don't want either to win. I also don't want them to fight forever, because it is killing civilians.

We should provide secure IDP facilities within Syria (either camps or protected cities), with real force (so we never again have another Srebrenica), or just focus on providing what infrastructure we can (free internet/phone/tv/etc. from Rivet Joints and UAVs and cross-border, medical supplies, etc.).

Taking sides doesn't really help.

(Letting Assad step down and go into comfortable exile in Iran or Russia would be fine, too, but making regime change a requirement to deal with chemical weapons seems to be an overcomplication.)

[s_q_b]

Looks like you nailed it: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/kerry-say...

[s_q_b]

This is exactly spot-on.

My only addition would be that the rebel groups must be inspected to determine whether they have gained control of any chemical stockpiles.

[rdl]

Definitely -- all chemical weapons should be escrowed. I'd be ok with doing a 1 for 1 swap of chemical for conventional weapons in exchange, if required, if the goal is just to get rid of the chemical weapons.

[s_q_b]

Exactly. That's smart foreign policy. A limited definable goal, preservation of the norm of prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, and a way to accomplish it that respects the interests of each of the parties.

[riggins]

The right thing would be to convince Assad to offer a truce

According to Juan Cole (who IMO has a pretty good feel for the Middle East), Assad has the backing of ~50% of the population.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/bombing-unlikely-effective.h...

this is not a war by an outside force like the Serbs of ethnic cleansing against a neighbor, but rather it is a civil war. The Alawis, Christians and secular-minded Sunnis in Syria are afraid of the rebel forces and either support or are neutral toward the Syrian government; together they may well come to half the country. That isn’t exactly a mandate for outside intervention.

I don't think its just Assad driving this.

[chatmasta]

"may well come to half"

Is that how we say "50%" nowadays?

[ibrow]

But then you look at Egypt. It once seemed so hopeful and now it appears to descending ever more into violence and civil war. What's to say that even if they do have fair elections unrest will continue.

[speeder]

Democracy is.not a solution for Syria. Mind you, about 60% of the population there belong to a group that hate the other 40% and would happily vote to kill them all. This is why Assad has so many people in Syria on his side.

[shimon_e]

Assad isn't rational anymore.

[shimon_e]

One solution mentioned in the house of commons during the debate was arming the rebels with chemical weapons as a deterrent against the Assad regime. I kid you not....

[fnordfnordfnord]

It doesn't even make sense, since CW are much more effective against the general population than troops. ie: It is much easier for troops to deploy countermeasures that negate or reduce the effectiveness of a CW attack. OTOH, in unlucky environmental conditions, a CW attack can wind up harming the rebel attackers and surrounding innocents as well, while the troops sit in their anti-CW gear and wait it out. Arming rebels with CW is just about the dumbest, least effective, most dangerous way to use CW; and ought to be a war crime in its own right.

[shimon_e]

Obviously the suggestion is stupid as both the rebels and the Syrian forces have mutual enemies that they both would use chemical weapons on.

I don't think Israel will allow an enemy guerrilla army from being armed with chemical weapons.

The real issue here is that Russia has vowed to protecting the Assad regime. This conflict is ultimately a proxy war.

The real question I have is why Russia is protecting Assad? Is it just a question of support what in their eyes is the lesser of two evils or is it a case of RDF?

[m0skit0]

That if Israel isn't backing the rebels. Israel doesn't like Syrian government -basically because it's one of the few Arab states that has a logical stance against Israel dominance in the region-, and hopefully a new government will be more "puppety" to their interests. Also Syrian government is pretty secular, which also bothers most Arab nations. Most US arab allies would prefer a more "islamic" government, probably this suits Israel as well so they have more justification in their "preventive" attacks (like they do in Lebanon with the Hezbola excuse).

[ibrow]

Well, if it works for nuclear?!

Bonkers.

[shimon_e]

Listen to it here: http://youtu.be/2pcssm6sLUk?t=2h15m10s

The suggestion was also mentioned by someone else too. Can't remember what the timestamp was.

[ibrow]

Many thanks for the link.

[frank_boyd]

Btw, if there was a chemical attack, there are 3 possibilities: a) Assad, b) Rebels (who may already have got access to some chemical weapon), c) CIA doing business as usual.

And as always, we'll never learn the truth in time.

[shimon_e]

No one is denying that there was a chemical attack. The question is how big it was. If it was just a small attack then it could have been the rebels dropping a bag of sarin gas. But if it is confirmed it was a large attack that could have only been launched by payload thus it must have come from the Syrian army. Leaving two possibilities. A rogue element from within the army or the Assad regime.

[m0skit0]

According to latest data, it was the rebels most likely. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels...

[pcl]

The linked article is from May. The latest controversy is about an attack apparently by the Assad regime on the 21st of August.

[frank_boyd]

True, but the take-way is:

> Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

This means: it's not impossible that rebels have access to some chemical weapon.

The US gov keeps repeating "we have evidence that it has happened" but a) they have never shown it, and most of all: b) they don't say "we have evidence that shows it was Assad".

[mapt]

Earlier events, if they actually occurred, were very small-scale; They killed a handful of people, and were very difficult to confirm - with blood tests eventually being held up as a smoking gun that chemical weapons were used at all.

What happened on August 21 is an entirely different matter: it involved a large-scale rocket barrage on a dozen locations in discontinuous rebel-held neighborhoods which gassed entire city blocks; the gas persisted long enough afterwards to kill people such as journalists who responded to the reports. Hundreds of Youtube videos of the fairly characteristic aftermath exist, with the bodycount presently at about 1500. The areas gassed were threateningly close to the core of Damascus. This much cannot be reasonably contested.

The US government reports that it was listening in on the phone calls from one military commander to another and heard comments indicating regime involvement. They are also claiming to have identified using aerial imagery the area the rockets were fired from, the preparation three days before, and the actual firing of the rockets:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly...

[m0skit0]

One of the arguments of the rebels is that they never had access to such weapons, which is absolutely false. In other news in May 30th Al-Qaeda's Jabhat Al-Nusra members were arrested in Turkey possessing Sarin Gas. Which, oh coincidence, is the same gas used in latest attack.

Also logic dictates it's very unlikely that the Syrian government, which is winning the war, will launch Sarin Gas in a Damascus neighbourhood (which is the capital, and thus where Al-Assad and this relatives live), leaving the US and its allies with an excuse to strike. Also Washington didn't want UN inspectors to stay longer to investigate, and it's doing everything possible to strike before UN inspectors can reach any conclusion. Without talking about Kerry proclaming US government has "proofs" but unwilling to show these proofs to anyone... Sorry, this is a "déjà vu".

Besides, witnesses and a AP reporter say it was the rebels who performed the attack. http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-sau...

[rjsw]

I guess the Syrians need to go somewhere, even if all fighting stopped today.

I have read an analysis that Syria doesn't have enough water to make cement/concrete to rebuild all the damaged buildings.