What can we drop (other than bombs) on Syrian weddings and funerals?
The Syria talks seems to assume that bombing or turning a blind eye to atrocities are our only two choices. That, obviously, isn’t true.
The best interim solution could be a UN-monitored ceasefire as briefly occurred under the Kofi Annan plan in 2012. All sides are dependent on outside backers, and even those who most want to fight need weapons, ammunition and money. Heavy pressure could be put on them to agree to a peace conference and a temporary ceasefire.
This would be a Lebanese-style truce – unsatisfactory but better than full-scale war. A peace conference on this basis could be the political and diplomatic counterpart to the limited US military strike President Obama is contemplating. In practice there has been a stalemate in most of Syria for the last year. If the Syrian army did use poison gas, it shows it does not have the strength to retake even the inner rebel-held suburbs of Damascus. It is better therefore for the battle lines to be frozen under some form of UN supervision. Long-term solutions will only begin to be feasible when Syrians are no longer at the mercy of what Northern Ireland politicians used to call “the politics of the last atrocity”.
And it isn’t even a question of “IF” the administration should find another option. Because the horrors of Bush’s term in office are still so fresh – we have no choice but to find a third way.
What is curious about the past week is the extent to which so many, especially the media and the British Government, misjudged the continuing rawness of the wounds inflicted by the Iraq war. I was in Baghdad for much of the conflict but I was always struck on returning to Britain by the lasting sense of outrage over the decision to go to war expressed even by the most conservative and non-political. As with the Munich Agreement in 1938, it has entered a deep layer of British historic memory, perhaps because people feel they were not only misled but lied to by their own government.
The parliamentary vote and opinion polls show that British governments have exhausted whatever capital of public trust they possessed when it comes to military ventures in the Middle East. Intelligence reports confirming that Assad used chemical weapons simply jog memories of past deceptions such as the “dodgy dossier” of 2003. Credibility lost then has never been regained.
I think the vote in the UK Parliament demonstrates that people believe there is another way.
MP’s were not choosing between military action and doing nothing. They voted not to do something which was a stupid idea that had little prospect of making things better for the Syrian people.
Now the focus has to be on getting a consensus at the G20 and a political process in place. Not as easy as firing a few cruise missiles but much more worthwhile.
Agreed.
I think the biggest issue you’re going to see with this is how exactly you get the numerous groups that constitute the “rebels” to come to the table with united interests. If Russia and Iran told Assad to jump he’d ask how high, but on the splintered rebel side where a lot of the groups motivations for fighting are completely different it is going to be tough.
You know, this reminds me of 46 years now of oh-so-reasonable calls for peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Even if we Westerners think that they make perfect sense — and from our cultural position, they certainly do — they haven’t made enough sense to the Israelis or the Palestinians to get them to go along. The last time the Israelis and an Arab nation had peace talks, when Anwar Sadat decided that peace was a better deal for Egypt, they got their peace treaty, but President Sadat was assassinated by his own people.
The real reason there have been no (serious) peace talks is because too many people on both sides believe that they can still win. And that’s the position of Bashar al-Assad: he’s getting plenty of military assistance from Russia, China and Iran. Why should he agree to serious peace talks at this point, why should he agree to an idea which would reduce the weapons flow to his troops?
Falcor wrote:
Perhaps so, but right now the Russians and the Iranians aren’t interested in a peace agreement. Not only is such not in their own interests, but both country’s leaders have exactly zero respect for President Obama, personally, and are more than willing to continue anything which takes his reputation down another notch.
This reminds you of Israel because you are an idiot. Other than general proximity, there is no similarity.
“both country’s leaders have exactly zero respect for President Obama, personally, and are more than willing to continue anything which takes his reputation down another notch.”
Really? They told you this when?
I agree with this from BooMan…
…also doing anything because John McCain needs to prove that America has the biggest dick is just stupid.
People forget that President Clinton bombed Iraq because Saddam Hussein did not follow UN resolutions and interfered with the body’s weapons inspectors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox.
Comparing bombing Syria with invading Iraq or Afghanistan is just silly. The better comparison, by far, is Operation Desert Fox.
A cease fire is not a realistic option. Too many rebel groups. Only takes one to break the agreement and reignite the civil war. Further, Assad only accepts the status quo if he thinks that he can avoid Gaddafi’s fate.
Assuming the war will continue (I think that it will), the question is whether the use of the chemical weapons is worse than the use of “conventional” weapons, such as thermobaric or cluster bombs, and therefore, a response–i.e., lobbing cruise missiles–is warranted.
All Clinton’s belligerence in Iraq did was pave the way for George Bush’s idiocy.
We are no good at holding cease fires and conferences because we never practice. Of course you are going to suck at stuff you don;t practice. Just ask my sixth grade saxophone teacher, Mr. John Rinker.
It wasn’t even important enough for Congress to return early from vacation. Why bomb now? Obama drew a line in the sand, and then balked. It’s too late for him not to look foolish now, no matter what he does.
Things aren’t all bad though. Some lucky people in the military will get ten days extra leave, over and above the normal thirty days, to accommodate their sexual preference.
That should boost morale……..right?
Part of what makes this so strange is the right’s (and the media’s) notion that allowing congress to act makes the President look “foolish” or weak.
It makes him look like an American who cares about our values and traditions. But I guess if George Bush is your presidential touchstone, everyone else looks like a crazy egghead.