text:
Opening statements
The immediate priority is to stop the loss of life on both sides in the conflict in Syria. The best guarantee of that is to allow Russian, French and British diplomats to work together to broker a ceasefire with immediate effect.
Opponents of intervention need to explain how staying the current course—hoping that diplomacy might work when it has not for nearly a year—is likely to resolve an increasingly deadly civil war.
Syria's uprising began in March in Deraa, a town near the border with Jordan. Riots broke out in protest at the arrest and torture of teenage boys who, inspired by other Arab revolts unfolding on satellite television, had daubed a wall with the words, "The people demand the fall of the regime". After the speed with which the Egyptian and Tunisian presidents were toppled, some thought that Bashar Assad's ouster would come swiftly. Eleven bloody months later, with more than 7,000 people dead in the government's continuing crackdown, those hopes are long gone.
Mr Assad shows no signs of abandoning his position. He has made desultory offers of reform, including the proposal of a referendum on a new constitution. But as the killing continues, these have little credibility. The presence of a team of observers sent by the Arab League only allowed the regime to continue the killing with impunity. Sanctions have been spottily applied; they are squeezing Mr Assad and his allies but not enough to make him go. Russia and China have vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on Mr Assad to adhere to a peace plan drafted by the Arab League under which the Syrian president would have ceded some of his powers to a deputy and engaged in reconciliation talks with the opposition.
With Russia fearful of losing its remaining ally in the Middle East, diplomacy has stalled. Calls are growing from such figures as the emir of Qatar for some kind of foreign military intervention. If outsiders felt they had a responsibility to protect Libyans from Colonel Muammar Qaddafi's onslaught, should that same responsibility not apply to Syrians, who are being killed in far greater numbers?
Suggestions for what form that intervention could take vary, from safe zones in the north-west of the country, near the border with Turkey, to targeted attacks on military bases, to supplying Syria's opposition with weapons. Those calling for these measures recognise that Syria would be trickier than Libya, whose liberation was achieved quickly and with relatively little bloodshed. Nonetheless, might the time have come to use force on Mr Assad and his regime?
But behind Libya looms the spectre of Iraq, another military intervention in a Middle Eastern country that sparked years of conflict in which more than 100,000 people died. Syria, with its complex sectarian and ethnic divisions, has more in common with Iraq than with Libya. No united opposition stands ready to sweep into Damascus and seize the reins of power. So far, there is no widespread international backing for military intervention, and there are doubts as to whether it could succeed. The West has seen in Afghanistan the results of flooding a warring country with weapons in an attempt to arm one side.
Arguing against military action is Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr Husain believes that military intervention is likely to lead only to further bloodshed. He suggests that the failure of the opposition, about which outsiders still know relatively little, to mobilise support among senior political and military figures suggests that Mr Assad still retains a grip on power. While Mr Husain recognises the horror of Syria's crisis, he maintains that moral outrage cannot shape foreign policy.
Opposing him is Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Doha Center. He acknowledges that though the idea of military intervention evokes memories of Iraq, those calling for action today are not proposing a full-scale invasion of Syria. Rather, he discusses options such as the creation of safe zones near Turkey. He argues that since attempts to mediate between Mr Assad and the opposition failed six months ago, there is little reason to hope that they will work now, with an increasingly militarised opposition that will accept nothing less than Mr Assad's departure.
Over the next ten days our guests will present their most persuasive arguments, but the result of our debate rests in your hands. Do not be afraid to vote immediately—you can always change your mind. Even better, once you have cast your vote, add your voice to the debate and explain your decision.
Military intervention in Syria is ill-conceived, short-sighted, counter-productive, and likely to generate more killings and massacres rather than stop them. Unlike any other Arab nation, Syria is home to varied and numerous assortments of religious sects, tribes, ethnicities and historic rivalries. In contrast to the uprisings in Yemen, Egypt and Libya, we have not witnessed high-level political and military defections inside Syria. And the largest cities in Syria—Damascus and Aleppo—have so far been relatively calm. Whatever the reasons—fear of, or support for, Bashar Assad—the opposition has thus failed to mobilise key constituencies inside Syria that would indicate to us that the regime is losing control.
Mr Assad retains a tight grip on the Ba'ath party. Its control of mosques, schools, businesses, police and local government means that it can still marshal large crowds of supporters in Damascus and Aleppo. Prominent Sunni Muslim clerics with regional weight, including Ramadan al-Bouti, have come out in support of the regime. At Friday prayers across the country they still pray for the strength of the government and call for "the destruction of its enemies"—Islamic reinforcement of Mr Assad's government in a deeply religious country should not be underestimated.
Just as Mr Assad's supporters use religion in Syria, so do his opponents. The footage coming out of Syria showing opposition forces killing soldiers and publicly torturing any who are accused of "spying" for the regime is deeply troubling; these are not the actions of democracy activists. In Tunisia and Egypt we heard cries for freedom, democracy and human rights. Sadly, in Syria, we are hearing shouts of "Allahu Akbar" and "jihad". Al-Qaeda has now officially entered this conflict. Military intervention assumes that we will support one side. Granted, Mr Assad is an Iranian stooge. But at least we know the nature of that enemy. The debilitating differences among the opposition, the lack of leadership, the taking up of arms, the torture and killing of opponents, and the co-ordination with al-Qaeda and jihadists from Iraq and the Gulf should force us to stop and take stock. Who are we being asked to support, much less arm? And with what consequences?
Moral impulse and outrage alone cannot shape foreign policy. Strategic calculations, national interests and geopolitical implications are paramount. In an attempt to stop the killing of thousands in Syria, military intervention and then toppling the regime risk unleashing forces that could kill millions. Mr Assad's supporters are just as brutal and vicious as the opposition. With Christians and other minorities fleeing across the Middle East, how wise is it to put in power a dysfunctional Sunni opposition? The premature removal of the Assad regime by force would not only result in a sectarian bloodbath inside Syria, but also encourage Iraqi Sunnis to violently agitate against Shia rule in Iraq. Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere would see their historic moment to create a homeland by forcing these countries to give territory, or face political violence. The fragile political balance in Lebanon would be threatened by greater Sunni-Shia clashes, led by Hizbullah.
In private, senior Israeli officials are aghast at the prospect of a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in Syria and are demanding that the all-important Golan Heights be returned. For all Mr Assad's confrontational rhetoric, Israel and Syria have enjoyed relative calm on the border. With terrorist threats from the Sinai in Egypt, and the Camp David accords regularly being tested by Egypt's new authorities, is this really the juncture at which to further threaten Israel's security?
The immediate priority is to stop the loss of life on both sides in the conflict in Syria. The best guarantee of that is to allow Russian, French and British diplomats to work together to broker a ceasefire with immediate effect. The British connection with Syria is unique: Mr Assad's wife is British, and her father is Syria's de facto ambassador-at-large in Europe. British and French ties to Syrian opposition factions are also strong. Without Russian involvement, the Syrian regime will not budge. A combined effort, with America at arm's length, is still the best way forward. Agreement from the Syrian and Russian governments can pave the way for peace. Without this, even peacekeeping missions would be seen as a declaration of war by China, Russia, Iran and Syria. With al-Qaeda on the ground, and Russia and China prepared to defend the regime, it is deeply imprudent to launch air strikes or missiles or even arm the rebels. The Free Syrian Army's several thousand fighters are no match for Mr Assad's forces of around 320,000 soldiers.
Cooler heads must prevail in Western governments. Diplomatic options have not yet been fully exhausted. After the Iraq debacle, we cannot choose military options over diplomacy so readily. In the great game to bring down Iran, and to strengthen Israel, do not go through Syria. Syria will prove to be yet another deadly, expensive detour for the West. Think Iraq, but compounded by sectarianism and regional contagion.
Military action, in any context, should not be taken lightly. But neither should standing by and proposing measures that have, in Syria, so far failed to work. Opponents of intervention need to explain how staying the current course—hoping that diplomacy might work when it has not for nearly a year—is likely to resolve an increasingly deadly civil war.
There is a bit of wishful thinking going on that Syria's president, Bashar Assad, might somehow be persuaded to stop the killing and negotiate in good faith with an opposition that, for its part, wants nothing less than to see him dead. A diplomatic solution would obviously be preferable—if it were possible. A military coup against Mr Assad would be a godsend. But we cannot continue to hold out hope for scenarios that are, at best, unlikely.
The Syrian regime has made its intentions clear. In recent weeks, the killing and destruction has intensified. The city of Homs, to cite only one example, experienced ten days of unyielding assault by regime forces. The more, it seems, we try to find a last-ditch resolution through the United Nations, the Arab League or Russian mediation, the more Mr Assad wages war against his own people. If mediation did not work six months ago, why should it now, particularly with an opposition that has grown increasingly militarised and will accept nothing less than Mr Assad's ouster?
The phrase "military intervention" understandably evokes weariness just by its very mention. No one, however, is arguing for an Iraq-style invasion with tens of thousands of boots on the ground. What is being suggested, including by both the French and Turkish foreign ministers, is the establishment of designated "buffer zones", "safe zones" or "humanitarian corridors" that would serve the purpose of protecting civilian populations, ensure the flow of humanitarian assistance and—more controversially—help establish a beachhead for Syrian rebels from which to more effectively resist the Syrian regime. These options would probably necessitate taking out the Syrian military's air defences. (For what a "safe zone" might look like and what it would require, read Michael Weiss's blueprint, which was recently endorsed by the Syrian National Council.)
Considering the inherent difficulty of such an operation, it would need to be done in close co-ordination with Syrian opposition forces, and would require Turkey, Qatar and possibly other Arab nations to play a leading role with strong support from America, Britain and France. While military intervention remains premature today, the planning for a number of military contingencies, which has already begun, must accelerate.
We might think that the Assad regime is about to fall, but clearly Mr Assad does not agree. The Syrian leadership still believes it can win. For Mr Assad, this is existential. If he "steps aside", he (and his family) will live in constant in fear of imprisonment or assassination. In a new, democratic Syria, the Alawite community, a minority ruling over a majority, will—the thinking goes—be threatened with, at best, persecution and, at worst, bloody reprisals. Mr Assad may be rational, but his rationality may be leading him to conclude that his best chance for survival is to double down and fight to the bitter end. The international community's failure to act has only reinforced such calculations. Mr Assad has concluded that he can get away with more repression and killing. And, so far, he is right. He does not believe the international community is serious about military intervention. And, so far, he is right.
One thing, however, that could alter Mr Assad's calculations is the credible threat of military force. A credible threat does not mean it must be acted upon, but it does mean that the international community must be ready to follow through on its threat, if necessary and if a particular set of conditions are met. A credible threat would embolden the opposition, encourage low-to-mid-level regime defections, and demonstrate to the Sunni business elite in Aleppo and Damascus that their long-term interests do not, and will not, lie with the regime.
Of course, preparing military options, which is what I have argued for, and pursuing diplomacy are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they should be pursued in parallel. The threat of military action, along with a significantly strengthened Syrian rebel force, will demonstrate to the Syrian regime that it will not, as it currently believes, be able to defeat its opponents outright. Today, there is a tremendous gap in military resources between the Free Syrian Army—a loose collection of local militias—and a regime with around 300,000 active-duty military personnel. If regime elements think they can "win"—a plausible scenario according to a strict assessment of resources and capabilities—then they have little reason to make the painful compromises necessary to end the fighting. Even if foreign powers decide to intervene militarily, mediation and diplomacy between the two sides can and should continue, as it did during the NATO operation in Libya.
Opponents of the military option will often point to the regional fallout that would result from military intervention. They do not always, however, point to the regional escalation that is already occurring without military intervention. Iran and Russia are actively supporting one side in a civil war, supplying the Syrian military with arms, equipment and technical expertise. Indeed, many of the supposed risks of intervention have already come to pass and will continue to grow worse in the absence of more determined action on the part of the international community. There is already Iranian intervention, a civil war, full-blown sectarian conflict, an increasingly militarised opposition, refugee runs, instability along the borders and a regime that appears intent on fighting to the death.
Meanwhile, some have argued that, despite the continuous assault on population centres, the death toll in Syria is relatively low, the implication being that not enough people have been massacred to justify intervention. There is some truth to this. Around 7,000 people have been killed, but the killing has occurred over 12 months, making the rate of killing significantly lower than that of Libya and even Egypt last February. That said, the "responsibility to protect" (r2p)—a UN-endorsed international norm—was established to prevent mass killings, not to protect people who are already dead.
Comments from the floor
Dear Madam,
Diplomacy has not only failed hitherto, but has not even shown any inkling of success. The alternative (military intervention) is quite unstable, particularly for the reasons put forward by the proposition. However, a good question to ask is: has Syria reached the point where military intervention is the only option? I think it has.
More importantly, as the opposition explains, military intervention does not imply full scale war. There are modes of military intervention that could provide assistance to the innocent Syrians being assaulted, without turning Syria into another Afghanistan.
Many pundits admonished intervention in Libya, others balked for a full-scale intervention. In the end, a middle ground helped to shorten a conflict that could have caused much more casualties. I think the same is required in Syria.
I ask this of the supporters of the proposition: if you were an innocent citizen of Syria, what would be your request to the world?
Dear Madam,
Reading the arguments put forward by Mssrs. Husain and Hamid, you could be forgiven to assume that we're writing in 2002 and not 2012. In 2002 the points made may have been worthwhile if made on not more than guesswork. Ten years later we have ample of hard evidence that even employing the most cynical justifications, that military intervention is serves neither the interests of the local population, nor "the international community" or even the intervening Team West. How anybody beyond vested local interests could seriously contemplate it is a mystery to me.
Dear Madam,
the very opening statement of Mr Hamid is unrepairably flawed. Hopes for diplomacy doesn't play substantial role in those who oppose intervention stance; and it is nobody's (except Syrians) business to choose sides in a civil war.
Two starting points, and both of them clearly wrong. Nothing to expect....
Thank you for your comments. I do not suggest that either Israel or US leave the UN. Times have changed since UN was created. If you view how many times Israel's recommendations come before UN and how many times they are rejected, you will note the change of times. However when the US interferes and send troops etc., they are welcome until they are not welcome and asked to go home. After many military losses of manpower and equipment. It is time for the neighbors of Syria to step up and assist in a major way to stop the killing in Syria and the UN have the means to enforce their decisions.
Please don't mis-understand my comment. I don't advocate that either the US or Israel leave the UN. But, it is a long time since the UN was created and the times are much different today. Just view all the times that the UN took up an Israeli request and see what the votes are. Almost hopeless for Israel. As an aside, please view History of Israel at Wikipedia...very interesting.
I hope you understand that the U.S. attempts to maintain peace, help is accepted, then the U.S. is critized for its help. In addition to losing so many American lives. Therefore it is beneficial that the UN make decisions on international matters and have the means to enforce their decisions. Thank you for your reply.
Dear Madam,
The infrastructure in Syria was (emphasise "was") very well developed, at least in the cities prior to this uprising.
Syrians now face a civil war, though I suspect that once the balance is tipped, the old regime will be turfed out fairly quickly, troops will desert and switch sides once it is safe to do so.
The more military the operation, the longer it will take to recover in my opinion.
I sincerely hope a way forward can be found without external military intervention (please at least not USA troops in there this time) as the resolution will be that much faster.
Dear Madam,
On reflection of the points of clash in the opening statements Mr Husein raises one point without expressing it's true weight. Geopolitics; in this case I believe it is not the soldiers of Assad that pose the greatest risk to human life but the soldiers of Iran and other Shia states. Surely the toppling of an Alawite leadership and the rise to power of the Sunni majority (in any form) will have huge political fallout possibly starting a conflict much larger than the current. Not that I will be voting for the motion. The Sunni majority must be represented in government and even with miracuous diplomatic coercion resulting in Assad's relinquishing of power the conflict between Sunni and Shia states may still occur. Military intervention will atleast dissuade Iran from charging in!
Dear Madam,
The gentleman arguing against the motion is in fact arguing against a straw-man. No well-intentioned opponent to intervention is suggesting that the current course of non-action is a sustainable one. Moreover, his argument assumes that all of the possibilities of diplomacy have been exhausted. That is simply not the case, as Mr. Husain argues in defense of the motion.
Moreover, there is no clear purpose in the opposition's policy prescriptions. Supposedly, there are two reasons for intervention: (1) To preserve regional peace and security; and (2) to protect the civilian population. It is unclear how the proposed "safe-zones" accomplish either goal, especially if they serve as a "beachhead for Syrian rebels." Intervention, if there must be any, cannot amount to "taking sides." It should be narrowly tailored to the protection of civilian lives. It is only when protection of civilians becomes impossible unless a regime is forcibly replaced. It is by no means clear that we are at that point.
I yield my "time."
Dear Madam,the point of intervention is to de commission Assad's "domestic" policy tool box of human life destruction. It is not to dictate the lives of Syrians, not to determine political outcomes. tThere is one side dying and one side killing despite illusions Husain may truly have chosen to perceive along with his Russian cohorts. The uncertainty of outcomes is not a rational reason to convince yourself of standing by during ongoing crimes committed against humanity;as being morally permissible or defensible.
Dear Madam,
I do believe that military intervention in Syria would be a disastrous campaign that would only result in a higher number of civilian deaths. Geographically speaking, Syria is a closed country surrounded by many other nations, whereas Libya has the whole Mediterranean Sea to its North. This made it much easier for NATO to deploy its warships just off the coast, and therefore supply the Libyan rebels with supplies and ammunition. So, as we can see, Syria would be difficult to penetrate considering the fact that only boots on the ground would be plausible. However, I do agree with Mr. Hamid on the notion that numerous "buffer" zones would help the rebels and lead to a less bloody outcome
Dear Madam,
I am writing to all those who go for military intervention.. You all say that while sitting save in your houses... We are Syrian... and we are the only ones who have he right to decide about our country.. No body there want any intervene from any body in any form.. We want to be left alone... And don't believe everything you hear or read in your media.. The opposition are as brutal as the system... They are not peaceful as you say.. The fights are not between army and un-armed innocent civilian.. it is between two armed sides.. so don't be biased to one side.. if you want to help you ask both to stop...Remember in Iraq, the reports that showed there was illeagal weapons and showed Saddam as a dictator and then they all were lies to give an execuse for the war... so why wouldn't be the same for syria???? The situation is hard but not as much as aljazeera or some media lie about...Thanks
Dear Madam,There is already military intervention. Russia,Iran,N.korea and China are arming Assad. Qatar and Gulf states are doing the Same for the free Syrian army...Turkey has let the F.S.A. set up a base on it's land and most people are sure Iran has forces in Syria and i'm sure others have as well. So the question should be...More military intervention..
Dear Madam,
I guess the value of intervention depends on the eyes that seem, yes? A citizen of Homs might welcome it.
In a few years we will be throwing blame around. Just like we did after Rwanda, Srebenica, Sarajevo...
Intervention may be risky yes. But then I would recommend targeting the top leadership using special ops, cruise missiles, UAVs and similar means.
UN become useless if Isreal or Us will make their own decision. Then The World wouldnt believe anymore UN. what a shame small ,country as Isreal will break all what was created into UN and gave existance of Israel as state
Dear Madam,
I would like to note that the question posed in the motion is so ambiguous or confusing (a cynic might say it is deliberately so)that some readers are actually voting contrary to their viewpoint. I can point to at least two comments where the writers voted yes for the motion, when they were actually advocating military intervention: comments by Yoni and by bgza. So I would actually request that the motion be clarified to mention that: if you support intervention then vote NO.
Obviously I am for an intervention. Most readers agree that there is a clear moral case, but are unsure of the consequences or the outcome of an intervention due to the complexity of the whole situation. According to this reasoning the slaughter of 8,000 citizen, or even a much higher number for that matter, would not justify intervention. This view overlooks the fact that this regime has been the most bloodthirsty in the Middle East, trumping Saddam's brutality and Israel's onslaughts. Not only did it slaughter tens of thousands in Hama 1982, but also directly killed tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens including two presidents (B Jemayel and R Moawad), the most prominent PM(R Hariri)and the most prominent politician K Jumblat. The regime survives on terror tactics. To allow it to continue to commit terror when at least 70% of the Syrian population have risen against it is simply an abdication of moral responsibility by the West. Notice that Russia and China support the regime because to a large extent they see themselves facing its predicament were their populations to wise up and realize they are living under dictatorships in disguise (Tiananmen and the recent demos in Moscow showed that the intelligencia do realize this fact). So "the West", the holder of the banner of Democracy and Human Rights, cannot shirk its moral responsibility in Syria. It either fights BRUTAL and blood thirsty dictatorships or it abdicates its moral responsibility and allows the slaughter to continue.
Dear Madam, I would also like to know how you negotiate a cease fire when the killing is one sided. Calling for a cease fire ignores facts on the ground and dilutes the discussion with that "diarrhea" Putin complains about ( somebody should tell that guy to stick to bad mitten )
Dear Madam,I just wish President Obama would flatten all military targets in Syria, forget waiting for international consensus . Russia and China shouldn't even have vetoes (Democratically elected governments should be a requirement) however since they do the U.S. should ignore them entirely and give the one finger solute.Russians calling for both sides to lay down arms is akin to telling them to just accept the fact that they are all going to die in short order(at the hands of Russian made arms by the way). It is the job of the President to use American military might to stop the ongoing genocide.
Dear Madam,
"Military intervention in Syria would do more harm than good" - who's MI and will do more harm than good to whom?
Dear Madam,
In general it should be realized and accepted there does not necessarily exists a good solution to every problem. And as outsiders our ability to influence events in Syria is fundamentaly limited, even if we were to intervene on a large scale.
These aren't theoretical considerations: even with 200,000+ military personel and contractors the US failed to effectively steer Iraq towards peace and stability. Post-Gadaffi Libya is controlled by tribal militias fighting amongst themselves, at the cost of a six month civil war that left tens of thousands dead.
The conflict in Syria is at least as much sectarian in nature as a democratic uprising. The only solution to such conflicts is if both sides secularize, but that's a long term process. Outside intervention can't end sectarian conflicts, only change which side is in power. Consider Kosovo, where the now-minority Serbs are persecuted by the now-majority Albanians.
Dear Madam,Military intervention is not an option because the situation is that in Syria we are talking about an intern conflict. So if you have an intern conflict in the Netherlands an we are fighting with democracy, the US should come and fight against the opposition?One other example is that there are many other countries like Uganda, Rwanda where people are under Militarydictatorship and I don't see Nato and the USA coming in to restore democracy. Lets think about the real facts and that is protectionism and economics protectionism
Dear Madam,
There is no proved that a foreign intervention will help the future of Syria. Look at Lybia: the unrest still goes on and the new "leaders" -if leaders are- lack the power and the commitment to stop the blooshed, torture, tribes fights, etc.
The muslim world is too much complicated and history has shown that any western intervention - has not been welcome on the mid-term. We could try to stop the massacre, but we may provoke another one. The only possible solution would be an arab intervention, but this is not going to happen. Hallopathy is not useful in these cases.
Dear Madam,
The Syrian dictator must be eliminated, as Quaddafi was.
For this a Western intervention like the Libyan one, non entering in the country, is indeed needed.
Afterwords there will certainly be a civil war, but without external intervention, Russia and Iran included.
That's life, when the brain is no more with a pseudo-president.
Dear Madam,
No please, not a war more: A new Afghanistan? A new Iraq? And what to say about Russia? What to expect from a new reason of war for Iran? What sense does it? We do not learn anything or do not want to learn?
Marcello Pedrelli
Dear Ma'am, we have seen diplomatic means try and fail for the past years. We have seen nations, acting in their own self-interest, protect Syria from international condemnation. We have seen the slaughter of men, women, and children over the past year. When is it enough? After the Second World War, we said never again, but we are condoning this slaughter by acting solely diplomatically. It is now time to step in and restore order and stop the systematic slaughter occuring currently in Syria.
Dear Madam,
If anyone is to intervene military, it should be Turkey, not the West. Turkey has the military ability, the location, a better understanding of the region, and, most importantly, they're the ones likely to face a flood of refugees (as they already are in a small way) if the situation gets much worse.
Dear Madam,
Nothing justifies this slaughter.
As an Israeli who has know nothing but grief from the Assads I know that any change maybe for the worst.
But nothing justifies this slaughter.
As an Israeli I wonder how can we ever rely on the world community's guarantees? You can't stop the slaughter. You do not want to stop the slaughter.
As an Israeli I ask what would happen if we slaughtered so many?
You know the answer. We all know the answer.
Why the hypocrisy?
Is blood valued by who sheds it?
For the sake of the innocents, for the sake of world order, for the sake of humanity... Stop the slaughter.
Stop it now.
Use force.
Stop it now.
Dear Madam,
'Moral outrage' is the only ground for intervention in Syria. But it is immoral to indulge in selective 'moral outrage'. As some of the comments suggest, if Assad goes Alwait oppression will be replaced with Sunni opression. There is no moral choice involved. It is a conflict in the Muslim world. Let them deal with it as their culture permits. The rest should keep away.
Dear Madam,
Yes i agree with the motion
The end game is not Syria and it was not Iraq in the past.
There is little doubt, for all the reasons given by so many of the readers, that Assad is going to succeed in bludgeoning the opposition to silence with the tacit assistance of Russian who has blocked any possibility of an alternative.
The end game then begins with a nuclear armed Iran + Syrian coalition making covert mischief in Saudi and the Gulf states causing them internal turmoil in view of their open hostility to Assad's Syria.
Does America sit idly continuing to contemplate the symptoms or does it act to eradicate the apparent causes ? Does Putin's Russia move to counter any such power play ?
These things are no longer inconceivable, we are steadily moving towards a reenactment of the 1960's Cuban crisis noone knowing the likely outcome.
This reads like a fiction prologue. Sadly it's reality now that pandora's box has been opened.
Dear Madam,
This debate about Syria seems to be misconstrued to favor the defense of the motion.The question rather, should be how or in what form can there be a military or other intervention. In a civil crisis like Syria, the world community owe it to Syrian people, to stop this out pouring of blood in time or else Syria will add to the growing number of countries like Rwanda, where genocide was committed and the world watched from a distance.
Dear Madam,
With or without military intervention the loss of lives, unfortunately, seems inevitable. What is important is an assesment of stability that will be established in Syria with Assad and without him.
I think that any destabilization of status quo in the Arab world will have unpredictable consequences and in all probablity will bring about radicalization of these countries. The so called "international community", which is an ephumasim for the western world, has greater economic problem at hand than worry about democracy, R2P and such alibis for meddling in international and affairs must be discouraged.
Given the stark fact that all countries pursue their own self interest, the "international community" is a bunch of confused countries not knowing what to do with themselves and are groping from one debacle to another and distracting themselves from their domestic problems. Let them occupy themselves with their own apparently insurmountable problems and with minimal international nose poking.
Dear Madam,
I'm following the Syrian uprising from day one. Being a Bengali Canadian I find present Syrian crisis great similarities with Bangladesh independence struggle with then West Pakistani junta. Despite demographic and Geo-political complication in Syria the whole world shouldn't remain silent in continued killing of civilians including babies, children and women. How long would be too long and how many lives would be too many too many to intervene? I think Syria has already became an international playground as Iran is pumping billions of dollar. International community need to intervene Syria, now it became a moral obligation.
M. Chowdhury, M.D.
Dear Madam,
We as outsider of Syria don't want any military intervention that cause immense harm to mankind of Syria. Any military invention will ultimately hamper other diplomatic and foreign relation. In addition commercial and economic relation get complicated. Neighbouring countries should come forward immediately in UNO and stop loss of life and other causalities.
It is not alone that Syria resolve, other should intervene.
R Subhranshu
Dear Madam,
There is clearly a need to step up and engage in something more than mere diplomacy, something which has not worked and shows no indication of working any better in future. But unless there is a clear "other side" to support with military intervention, such intervention will only create more chaos and a country without a leader. The rebel factions have not presented themselves to be any more peace-loving than Assad, and to support them would only be to put in place yet another future dictator.
Should a credible rebel faction emerge though, one not tainted by the influence of Al Qaeda nor unjustified bloodshed and torture, military intervention would be the best way forward. For now, I can only vote for the motion.
Dear Madam,
Considering the outcome of Arab Spring in all countries where such movements took place (Tunis, Egypt, Libya, etc.), I have to agree with the motion.
If anyone believes that a military intervention in Syria will calm the spirits and eventually install a democratic regime in that country - he/she is a dreamer.
After so many failures, the Western powers should have learned by now that it is mandatory for the security of the free world NOT to get mixed in any crisis that afflicts the Arab world under the penalty of being considered, in the end, guilty of interfering in their affairs.
Let the members of the Arab League devise and implement a satisfactory solution for the Syrian crisis. No one else should.
Dear Madam,
The moral case for intervention is strong but just cause alone is not enough to intervene in a crisis. A primary consideration has to be whether intervention will lessen or exasperate a crisis and at what cost. Will military action avoid being dispproportianate? The practicality and logistics of Syrian intervention make this a tactically unwise decision.
safe zones/ safe havens- its only safe if it can be effectively defended. Srebenecia is a profound example of what happens when safe zones fail. Such zones would place all the opposition in one area and leave them vulnerable to attack. If there is no peace to keep safe zones are likely to do more harm than good.
Deployment of ground troops would not be a peace keeping operation as some have suggested. The Arab League likes to encourage intervention but doesn't match that enthusiasm with the troops or resources it commits. A western led ground intervention would only inflame the situation.
Its clear there needs to be some form of intervention by the international community but I'm unsure as to what form. While the international community dithers Assad's regime is emboldened and the opposition morale fades.
Dear Madam, there are 0 reasons for the US to be involved with Syria. Another Mooclim country that hates the US and has no oil. Let them find their own solution
Dear Madam,I feel great sympathy for the victims of the current oppression and am disgusted by the brutality of the regime. However There is very little to be gained by intervention. Even if we help to facilitate a change of regime we have no idea if the new order would be an improvement. We have no idea who these people are or what there agendas might be. I suspect the Alawis would be restored to there historic role of a victimized underclass or likely much worse. The Christian community is also at great risk and likely to suffer a similar fate as the Chaldean Christians of Iraq. This also goes for the Druze and Kurds. The tyranny of the majority may be much worse than the tyranny of the current Alawite regime. Anyone expecting an enlightened regime to follow a successful revolution is likely to be very disappointed. Sometimes there is no good solution to a problem and when that is the case the prudent thing is not to recklessly insinuate yourself into it.
Dear Madam,
I think that in regards to Syria we need to acknowledge the fact that there is covert Western intervention (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/nato-vs-syria/) and that there is are armed groups in Syria (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29025).
Dear Madam,
I wholeheartedly agree with this motion. The West needs to intervene in Syria and facilitate the overthrow of the Assad regime because it is both the smart and right thing to do.
It is the right thing for two reasons. By refraining to intervene, and allowing Assad to massacre his own people into subjugation and surrender, the West is saying that Arab life is cheaper than European life, and what was not acceptable in Bosnia and Kosovo is OK in Syria, because unlike Libya, it has no oil. Kind of hard, not to mention chutzpah of the first degree, to preach and promote democracy to a people who lives clearly are cheap.
In addition it is also right because the West is responsible for this mess. It was post WW1 Western imperialistic meddling in the Middle East that created the situation which allowed the minority Allawites to impose their rule on the Sunni majority in Syria, just as it facilitated the rule of the minority Sunnis in neighboring Iraq. The West is ultimately responsible for creating this mess, so it is only right and just that it assume that responsibility and risk shedding some if its precious blood to put things right.
It's smart because by showing it practices what it preaches about human rights it might actually win hearts and minds in the Middle East. In addition, it would promote stability, which can only be achieved with majority rule.
Dear Madam, the death of a single person is not to be celebrated. Intervention (military) just in terms of supporting the opposition to the actual regime in Syria makes not much sense. If such military effort were made to support a coalition government (as it has happened in other split countries) to afterwards to create the necessary consenssus for a government of such type it is worth the effort. Even at the cost of temporarily bring about some new victims, achieve the said consensus.Truly Yours. Fernando Lagos
Dear Madam,
It sounds as thought he Gordian knot remains in the ancient world. But perhaps the last thing we need is a "hero" to cut through it.
On the one hand, there is a clear humanitarian crisis with thousands killed, maimed and traumatised.
On the other hand there is a complex mesh of related rather than common causes and fragile alliances of religious, social and economic groups .which make it very hard either within or without the country to identify enemies and friends, and enemies friends and enemies enemies.
This situation might sound like an echo of the Great Game, where the history as written in Russia, China, Europe and The USA will all resonate with current political domestic and economic interests.
And what about leaving it to the neighbours? Well, that depends on their less arm's length domestic audiences for sabre or sheath rattling: it's more likely to be about national borders, natural resources and making sure regional rivals don't pierce the points of national vulnerability.
Finally, the most worrying question about this challenging issue is the role of the media and local national opinion. How are our facts mediated by the reports we receive and the filters that our political and social assumptions subtly interpose.
So I am no hero. I can't cut the Gordian knot. But my moral alarm won't let me say leave 'me to it or let the neighbours help settle the peace.
For now, I vote against intervention, given our lack of knowledge of probable outcomes, the lack of value of piecemeal gestures and all the heritage of failed interventions. But I do think of Bosnia, and that some good was redeemed (maybe). I do wonder how we get the Russians into positive engagement in a trusting and trusted way to make diplomacy work.
But nonetheless I support the motion, for now, with concern and no confidence.
Dear Madam,
I agree with the views of Jonathanseer and Armenian Lebanese.
Having lived and workded in Lebanon and Syria for over six years, I got a better understanding of the social, political and religious fabric and implications of these two complex nations steeped in ancient, proud and rich cultures. Syria has been a role model to many of its Arab neighbors by the way the government have managed to assure stability to all religious communities and particularly to those of minority communities where they have been thriving and living peacefully with one another for 40 years.
The first sign of rift in Syria started with the first bloody massacres committed by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 70s against the Alawite community of the coastal city of Latakia, targeting members of the Alawite intelligentsia (scientists, doctors, professionals) and young Alawite women. The reason behind this hatred is steeped in the Sunnis' views that Alawites are not true Muslims because they don't force their women to wear the veil and because they aren't orthodox Muslims.
Some Sunnis in Syria abhore the Assads because of the army invasion of Hama to topple the Muslim Brotherhood which continues to have close ties to Saudi Salafists, a very extremist group who believe in the return of old Islamic glory and Sharia laws.
Jonathanseer made a brilliant point when saying that this war isn't only about asking for democracy, this war is a sectarian war where some Sunni Syrians want a Muslim President (meaning a Sunni), since some Sunnis don't consider the Alawites as Muslims despite the fact that they are.
This is just a clear example of how 'Minority' communities are seen or viewed by the majority Sunni Arabs in the Middle East. One needs to look back at the history of the Ottoman empire and the persecutions afflicted on their Christian subjects and other Muslim minority communities, especially the Alawites who were massacred by the Ottomans in the 1500s in Aleppo forcing them to take refuge in the mountains. Centuries later, the Ottomans commit greater atrocities: the genocide of the Armenian people . it is indeed difficult for us Europeans to understand and grasp this sectarian divide that can wreak havoc in people's lives just because they don't belong to the right religious community.
We do need to ask ourselves will there be another Rwanda or Darfur in Syria? It is already happening where member of the Syrian opposition have been committing atrocities against minority civilians.
Dear Madam,
May I ask you to remind your audience to remember Srebrenica.
Thank you
Dear Madam,
I voted yes because, as Mr. Husain points out, there have been no notable defections from the regime, either from civil or military personnel. This unity indicates a prolonged fight if the West intervenes, as opposed to the relatively quick operation in Libya, where disunity within the government caused it to fall early in the conflict.
Also, as Mr. Husain also notes, there is no organized opposition ready to take power. Terrorist networks are on the ground in Syria, and to risk installing a hard-line Islamist government (as opposed to a relatively liberal one, such as in Egypt) is to risk further instability in the region, and Syria being used as a base of operations for terrorist activities.
Dear Madam,
In Syria, the case of the Middle East versus the West continues. It is an interesting dynamic indeed. This is a region with a healthy distrust and advertised distain for Western influence. Yet insurgents in need of a regime change seem to have no compunction about playing on the sympathies of democracy in order to help their cause. Unseating despots, tyrants, and others who fall into the general "bad actor" category by proxy is certainly not a new concept, particularly for the West. However, the success rate (defined as the establishment of a free and independent society friendly to our governments) is very poor.
The West seems incapable of acknowledging its armed interventionist history in the region. Best intentions coupled with knee-jerk responses fueled by an overarching belief that Western democracy exists as the arbiter of liberty throughout the world. The endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan on the region should restrain any palpable enthusiasm regarding the effect of Western military influence in changing the Middle Eastern concept of what freedom means. The "soft interventions" in Egypt and Libya factor into the equation as well (only time will tell).
Modern Syria has a bloody reputation of oppressive rule that will not be eradicated by arms-length Western military involvement. The problem is far more complex that believing the prevailing winds of the Arab Spring can sweep away the ugliness of man's inhumanity to man.
All people should be able to live in freedom, but unfortunately that's a utopian ideal. Unfortunately, the real world is where we all reside. The harsh lesson for the West – borne out by experience – is that it should choose sides carefully. The devil really is in the details.
Dear Madam, I see no chance for diplomacy, but do not think that intervention is the solution either, and so have voted yes on the motion.
Dear Madam,
There are many countries where governments are either killing their people or, through exploitation and corruption, selling their lives cheap. Why is there a clamour to take military action in some but not others? Why Syria but not North Korea or the Congo?
Dear Madam,
I find merit in both statements. Without China and Russia agreeing to participate in the UN's recommendation, it's best for the Arab nations to take the lead. The UN at best needs reorganizing and military support otherwise they have no reason to continue.
Dear Madam, I just read Ed Husain's piece, and I have to say I didn't expect to agree so completely. It makes my post look like a briefer, reordered, regurgitation of his own piece. Let me assure anyone who feels that way, it's not.
There is simply NO clear "good side" to support in Syria.
The opposition has among its supporters Bahrain.
How that nation brutally and uncompromisingly dealt with its opposition should serve as a warning to those who think the Sunni dominated opposition to Assad will be better.
Military intervention is not something rational to do. Look at Libya, people are always hurt the most. Now that Qaddafi is gone, why doesn't there still have peace? Outsiders, especially western countries should not play the same game as to that to Libya. In this case, there is no way to test a theory or an action by just doing it.
Dear Madam,
undoubtedly no one will actually read this, but still.
unfortunately I am a capitalist and when I see that the CN, EU, and the US go around the world capturing resources it makes me wonder WHO those resources go to?
In China those oil and food resources go directly to the government because their food and oil industry is nationalized. Sure some of the managers get a large share of the profits but nothing like the oil companies here and in the EU where virtual Monarchies have been setup.
In the US/EU those resources go directly to private individuals who have purchased influence in our democracy. If you say anything about their purchase of our leaders you are a conspiracy theorist, but I as an MBA who graduated cum laud am anything but.
Instead I am ENVIOUS! I am JEALOUS! Why should THEY who did not do the killing nor the dying receive all of the economic benefit? Either those riches should be shared directly with the troops or they should be spread out amongst all the citizens.
In the US we have Privatized HUGE chunks of our government, perhaps it is time we nationalized SPECIFIC parts of our government relating to the capture of resources in other regions? Or not, I don't know, but oil prices should not be $4 a gallon after the US captured one of the largest oil fields in the entire world. It just doesn't make sense, unless of course we not have Oil Monarchs who are attempting to rule over us.
So no, I don't support going into Syria because I know how much bullets and guns cost and I PERSONALLY Know some of the owners of those industries. They are nice guys, but as stingy and greedy as anyone you will ever meet.
One of them has over ten flat screen tvs in his house and was almost angry when his FATHER asked him for ONE, just ONE when he has TEN.
You have no idea how malevolently stingy my ultra-rich friends are, it's insane.
Dear Madam, The struggle in Syria is a proxy battle between the Alawite/Shia and the Sunni, and NOT a battle between oppressed democracy loving folk and a brutal dictator.
The rebels are hardly going to provide Syria with a system any better than Assad.
Instead they will unleash a reign of terror on what they consider heretics the Alawites.
Ironically, the installation of the Rebel's government would also INCREASE the dangers faced by Israel.
Despite being a close ally of Iran, Syria has kept a lid on the "enemies" of Israel in the most important region bordering Israel.
Should the Sunnis gain control, we should expect to see that sort of control falter and collapse, just as it is in the process of doing in Egypt, which is no longer able to fulfill their contract to ship natural gas to Israel thanks to sabotage of the gas lines that were secure under Mubarak.
By no Western measure is Assad a good leader.
The problem is he isn't in the West. He is in the Middle East.
Compared to what could follow him, he's the best option.
Should the Rebels succeed, peace will not follow. Instead we are likely to see state sanctioned mass killing and expulsions of thousands of Syrians who benefited from and supported Assad.
Even worse is the fact that Al Quaida has joined the Rebels, talk about a non-compromising radical element, jeez.
The West needs to get its head straight.
Simply because Assad is a oppressive dictator does NOT mean those that oppose him are democracy loving.
Instead they look more like another version of Assad albeit one with revenge their main focus.
We should stay out of and as far away as possible.
No matter who wins, the West will still be seen as evil.
Dear Madam,
Miltary intervention without a clear objective for which the armed forces are equipped and trained is likely to make matters worse.
Some commentators use the expression "military intervention" as if the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Any military intervention (short of obliterating your enemy) risks failure either by failing - see Vietnam, or by reaching a bloody impasse, see Korea/ Indo Pak/ Middle East passim.
Surely military intervention should be a last resort in defence of a state's clear, vital and immediate interests against threats for which that state (with alliances where interests coincide)where the is a much better than 50/50 chance of success.
Hence I vote to support the motion.
Dear Madam,
My country fought its own civil war over 150 years ago, at least 4 of my ancestors participated in this conflict. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost and the scars of that war still resonate to this very day. Most importantly though, other than a few British military advisors, no outside force intervened militarily. Civil wars are an internal matter and should remain as such.
The US and UK need to remain fully removed militarily from this conflict.
Though I voted Yes, that military intervention will create more harm than good, I am not opposed to limited intervention. If the Arab League, UN and EU would like to do something to assist the Syrian people, then sectioning off "safe zones" or "DMZs" in the north and south of the country to provide aid and refuge for civilians would be acceptable.
However, if the situation were to change and a united free syrian force were to develop, that would ensure peace and stability for all ethnic sects within the country, and would attract high ranking officials from within the Assad regime. Then I would support supplying this force with military advisors, weapons and air support. This scenario seems highly unlikely in a nation as sectarian and fractured as Syria though.
Dear Madam,
Dear Madam,
Dear Madam,
I think it is time for the Russians and the Chinese to offer up their armed forces young men and women as cannon fodder to die intervening in the Syrian conflict.
Since they vetoed the United Nations vote , they should put their soldiers blood where their mouth is.
Why should we in " The West " always have to see their children come home from foreign wars in body bags.
But I guess they must think that if you are making big profits on arms sales to fuel the war , you wouldn't want to get any blood on your hands.
Another thought is let the Arab League nations
offer up their troops and clean up the mess, but that might effect their oil profits.
So I ask the question , who will in the end get the dirty job to put boots on the ground ?
Arabs VS Arabs ? Russians and Chinese ?
or the good old stand by the USMC and the PPCLI?
Dear Madam,
Military intervention in Syria must be a last resort, and then only carried out by Syria's neighbors. Censure, extreme and genuine censure, by Mr. Assad's regional peers is the only thing that will convince him that power is finally slipping from his grasp.
Western military action might cause his regime pain but it would also introduce a convenient and effective distraction from the very real brutality perpetrated by Mr. Assad. Tyrants thrive when they have a foreign enemy to rally their nations against. Let's not give him any more help.
Dear Madam,
Military intervention rarely produces acceptable results, let alone good ones.
On the other hand, letting people be murdered by a criminal regime is against all the instincts of a civilized society.
Between a rock and a hard place, that's where we are, morally speaking.
I'm afraid the big world convulsion that tends to come up every three generations is there already: financial failure between 2002 and 2008, deep recession, debt crises, financial wars, civil wars are exactly the same ingredients that have caused the tragedy of the thirties and forties
Hope I'm very wrong.
Vote pro not very enthusiastically.
Dear Madam,
Short of assad decimating his population there are 3 avenues to pursue in order of desireability:
1) The Islamic countries intervene militarily, wiping out assad and his supporters.
2) Syrian opposition to assad leave the country, leaving only assad and his supporters/handelers. Thereafter Syria becomes a free fire zone for any countries wishing to do so.
3) Cluster assad and his inner circle of handelers/supporters at ground zero of a nuclear tipped ICBM.
Dear Madam,
A short information about Syria from Wolfram Alpha. I don't know how long this document will remain online.
The european union shouldned intervent military. It is something the Arab League should make on theire own. Nobody wants our military forces there.
Dear Madam,
I believe that a peaceful world is one which has protection of individual rights as the core concept of legitimate social organization or action. However, that is NOT the case today in most societies and will not be realized, if ever, for quite some time. In the Hobbs type state of nature which comprises today's Syria as well as most of its neighbors, distinguishing "good" actors from "bad" is dicey at best. Geopolitical reality rules out imposition of useful conflict limitation measures such as arms embargoes or "no-fly" zones. These have reduced violence and speeded political change in other conflicts, notably in Libya. Russia is playing the BAD guy here and is not going to change. Other than holding Russia up for international rebuke and isolating it from prestigious forums like the G-8,
little can be done. The Obama administration is in campaign mode and refuses to be distracted from any non-vote getting or reelection enabling
business. Hopefully, the Syrians will come out stronger as a nation for having to take care of themselves.
Dear Madam,
Let the Syrian regime kill his own people is tantamount to complicity.
The notice of the Russians and the Chinese must not lead to the cowardice of the rest of the civilized world.
Dear Madam,
The Syria question is a classic game of chess in the game of geopolitics. Syria's primary ally in the middle east region is Iran. The USA in particular and western nations want to limit Iran's influence and power projection in this area especially given that the USA is withdrawing from Iraq. The most effective means of doing this is to have regime change in Syria - but to whom.. the lesser of 2 evils I suspect. China purchases significant amounts of oil from Iran, and Russia in collusion with China is happy to destabilise the foreign policy of the USA in particular by having a trouble maker (Iran) preoccupying USA's attention. This preoccupation takes the pressure off Russia and China - ties up military and diplomatic resourses away from their desired sphere of influence and gives them a bargaining tool in the process. Pity the repressed and subjugated population of Syria have to pay the ultimate price in someone elses game of chess. I say support regime change in Syria but be careful what you ask for - Muslim Brotherhood?
Dear Madam,
I voted no, even though I believe a US and/ or European military intervention would be counterproductive. The idea that "Russian, French, and Russian dipomats" can broker a ceasefire is ridiculous. And a "yes" majority could easily be construed as wanting no intervention at all. All sorts of interventions are already taking place. The important thing now is to find ways to change the correlation of forces in Syria: civilian aid, safe border zones, food, arms, and effective international isolation of the regime.
Dear Madam,
So far over the past decade, US/UK have invaded or attacked three Muslim countries (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) and are engaged now in a war of nerves with a fourth (Iran) and a fifth (Pakistan). In each case, we have replaced nasty hostile leaders with new nastty hostile leaders. Clearly, we should perists in this policy in the name of Democracy, Human Rights and World Peace. The good news is that there are many more Muslim countries to attack or invade. Where should we go next? Well, let's start with Syria because, after all, they're asking for it. Next, we can have a go at Iran. By then Iraq should be ripe for a third war. No worries.
Dear Madam,
In a world that was not already ravaged by countless scars of jingoistic abuse of authority, the answer would unquestionably be, yes, depose a violent dictator by any necessary means. Unfortunately, we live in a world where military powers do not act altruistically, so if the invasion of Syria were to take place, we could be sure the reason was not to prevent the massacre of civilians. If only peace, and not undue political influence (in a region we desperately need it) is the goal, why aren't we intervening in dozens more humanitarian crises? Compare our hundreds of military targets over the past centuries. A country that has strategic value in its geography, social influence or natural resources can expect if it has not been invaded yet it will be, and a country that does not can expect to be ignored if a murderous lunatic takes power. For these reasons, the crisis in Syria is best left to minor military players and the international community at large.
Dear Madam, the international labor movement must find a way to arm the Syrian workers, in able to defend their communities and repel the military onslaught. That the Syrian masses must form a revolutionary military committee as the first step towards this.
Dear Madam,
Britain needs to stop acting as though it is a world police force and maintain a sense of realism. If moral concerns were the only reason for military intervention why is there not a huge British and UN presence in Africa? This conflict has only been given such attention due to it's presence in a Russian sphere of influence. The West hope to create another friendly nation by forcing the opposition into power and therefore lowering the risk of all out nuclear war against Israel, a country they will be forced to protect militarily.
Frankly as they only produce 0.5% of the world's oil supply, military intervention against a significant proportion of the country's population just doesn't make sense
Dear Madam,
To the proposition that: "This house believes that military intervention in Syria would do more harm than good.", the answer is certainly yes, but nevertheless such outside intervention will - sooner or later - inexorably become necessary.
The modern world simply cannot acquiesce to the naked barbarity of the tyrannical Assad regime's brutal assaults against the Syrian people and continue to call itself civilized. In the end it must respond with force to force as a moral imperative.
Even obstructionist Russia and China will come around to that view when it becomes evident that the interminable continuation of the Syrian Civil War is bad for (their) business.
Dear Madam,
A bloody civil war is now at hand. Given the moral imperative, we must provide humanitarian support at the very least for the rebels. The Assad regime must fall. Military intervention is not yet caled for.
Dear Madam,
One must not dismiss military intervention altogether. Since Bashar Assad´s regime is not only failing to protect its own people, but butchering it on the ground, it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene so as to prevent further civilian casualties and human suffering. Such responsibility, namely R2P ("responsibility to protect"), has been endorsed by the UN itself in 2005.
Preventive diplomacy and all other peaceful means must always be exhausted before military action takes place. However, since diplomacy has hitherto failed, intervention may well be necessary. Such intervention must obviously be authorised by the Security Council. It must also take into account the need for "responsibility while protecting" (RwP), a concept ushered in by the Brazilian diplomatic corps since last year. If military action is approved, it must be moderate, proportional and those in charge should bear in mind it must not do more harm than good. One extra civilian casualty is one too many. Thus, intervention must be carefully assessed and monitored to ensure it does not create further conflict and suffering.
Although this is easier said than done, just standing by while a deadly civil war takes its course is definitely doing more harm than good to the Syrian population.
Intervention in any country is a dangerous principle. It is hard to accuse other countries of interference in ours, when (for whatever reason), we think it 'morally justified' to interfere in their's. Of course it is morally offensive to see the Syrian regime maul their own people, of course it is frustrating to NOT interfere on one side or another... naturally we think we have a 'crusading' responsibility to spread peace, love and democracy to all who we think need it....but it is usually a mistake, always costs us in blood and/or treasure, and invariably leads to unintended consequences.
I started by hoping for a revolution in Syria a country I love but now see that the continuation of the vile Assad regime in power is the least bad outcome - otherwise we shall probably have a long civil war that will probably spill into Lebanon. If the Shia majority comes to power we shall have the Brotherhood and Christians will flee - and the next regime will probably be equally bad or much worse. On the other hand the Shia are the majority and denying them power as with the Islamists in Algeria will cost much blood. I should also point out that military intervention in a sovereign state is very hard to justify. Russia thinks two-thirds of Syrians want the regime to remain and this sounds likely.
Dear Madam,
The proponent argues that moral outrage should not influence foreign policy. I would differ and say it does influence politics and policy and rightly so. Unfortunately, the reality is sometimes that the most heinous state sponsored crimes go unpunished due to lack of visibility, or practical options. Libya tought us that there are many ways to help short of boots on the ground, and there is an international community (wishfully,led by Arab nations) ready to protect civilians.
Dear Madam,
If you define "harm" narrowly as to mean total bloodshed, then you are correct in a literal sense. The amount of blood shed by a few rebels in jail is less than the blood shed by thousands of rebels in the streets. But what about bloodless harm, like limited civil rights and human rights? What is it, exactly, that makes Syria different from Libya?
Dear Madam,
Husain's argument is so riddled with error it is hard to know where to begin and I'm sure Mr. Hamid will not be able to address them all given character limits, so I help him here. First off, I just want to point out Husain does not appear to be arguing against military intervention, rather it is clear he is actually arguing that it is favorable that Assad stay in power.
I'm not sure what's worse, his attempt to play on the ignorance of others or his display of his own frightening ignorance for someone being held up as an expert. Here we go:
1. 'Damascus calm.' Maybe 1 year ago. Please review the events of the last few months with areas mere kilometers from the heart of the capital falling in and out of rebel control.
2. "Prominent Sunni Muslim clerics with regional weight, including Ramadan al-Bouti, have come out in support of the regime." al-Bouti holds no religous 'regional weight' and is widely derided as government stooge and further more as been a non-actor in the uprising. Actual regional religious heavy weights, whether Islamist Qaradawi, Sufi Bin Bayyah, Syrian al-Yacubi, or the myriad Gulf Safafi's, have all come out vehemently against Assad, issuing fatwas declaring it illegal to serve in his army and urging people to join the opposition. It appears the prevalent sentiment amongst Sunni's is that they does not even view the Alawite president as qualifying as Muslim. Again, the idea that the regime has 'Islamic reinforcement' borders on the absurd.
3. "But at least we know the nature of that enemy." Again, it should be noted Husain's appears not to be arguing against intervention, rather he is arguing in favor of keeping Assad in power.
4. " Mr Assad's supporters are just as brutal and vicious as the opposition." Notice the rhetorical slight-of-hand not only giving parity to the violence being committed by the regime and opposition, but in fact implying that it is the opposition that is 'brutal and vicious.' If it wasn't so worrying it would be laughable.
5. "al-Qaeda" Husain indicates that al-Qaeda presence is established. His explanation? He himself stated so just a few paragraphs prior.
6. "Israeli's... demanding that the all-important Golan Heights be returned." Is this simply a grammatical error? Given Husain's career is that of a writer and 'intellectual' I'm assuming not and that he indeed is unaware that Israel is currently in positon of the 'all-important Golan Heights.'
7. "Think Iraq, but compounded by sectarianism and regional contagion." Yes, of course were not present in Iraq.
Many people will be against military intervention and for good reason, I only hope that those views/votes are not assumed to be support of Mr Husain's ill-informed, sophomoric arguments.
Dear Madam,
The appetite for justice must take a back seat to the cause of peace. The international community must give dictators who have overstayed their welcome a graceful and safe way out. Assad and his family ought be able to live in exile, in luxury and without fear of prosecution. Sadly the precedence set by the trial of Mubarak and the killing of Gadaffi is promoting retrenchment among dictators and the deaths of many thousands.
Anyone who supports military intervention under the notion that the situation is getting out of control should not limit their understanding of intervention to only that from NATO, it could very well also be a coalition of Russian and Iranian troops or drones being sent in to crush the insurgency, which is arguably also a viable solution to the mess and would be no different to what the US did in Bahrain not long ago. It is only fair that when we debate the viability of violence as a solution to world problems we consider violence as being applied to both sides, and chances are those who supports the use of violence on others might not share the same feeling when that violence is used on them.
Dear Madam,
By the time any reader reads through your motion, 3 or more Syrians would have been murdered in cold blood by the AlAssad's thugs.
The TERRORIST Bashar Alassad has taken the Russian/Chinese veto as a license to accelerate the killing of Syrians. Every passive motion or statement is reassuring Alassad that he can keep killing without worrying about being held accountable for his beasty crimes.
If the murder of 8,000+ and the 100+ killed daily and the barbaric actions of AlAssad have not rocked the free world, then I wonder what can!
The Syrians are determined to rid themselves of a brutal and ruthless tyranny that lasted 40 years. Whether the West intervenes or not is a matter of being a human or not at this point.
Dear Madam,
Dear Madam,though I am in favor of intervention, I don't feel that now is the time. As this poll indicates, the world has yet to coalece around a united policy. Until a united front can be formed we will have to wait. That is the lesson from Iraq.
Dear Madam,
I agree with both Mr. Hamid and Mr. Husain on a few points that have been made. Currently, immediate military action is not the best course. All civil wars or strife in history have been bloody and we should not expect this one to be any different. Regardless, the western world must send a clear message to Assad that if the violence does not stop all options are on the table. Assad's regime could get away with leveling a city in 1982 but in 2012 shelling your own people with artillery will result in serious consequences. As of right now, the leaders of the western world have not publicly taken a firm enough stance. If he does not agree to stop and make the necessary reforms, the diplomats must present Assad with the possible scenarios of charges of crimes and the final ulimatum of military action. As of right now, it is too early for military action, but the heat must be turned up on Assad.
A buffer zone or safe zone that is being suggested would only create a refugee camp.
Dear Madam, Assad's departure from Syria would cause all hell to break loose in the Middle East. Lebanon would become engulfed in civil violence as the citizens are divided between supporters of Assad and opponents of Assad. It is already a fragile situation there, and any regime change in Syria would cause those tensions to materialize into violence. Besides, most people in Syria still support Assad, especially in the major cities of Damascus and Aleppo. Has any one thought what would happen to all the minorities after the fall of Assad? There are over 2 million Christians in Syria, comprising of Syriacs, Armenians, and Assyrians, and, under Assad, are free to worship and practice their religion without any trouble. They are able to build churches and schools, and the Armenians even have their own political organizations and newspapers there. There are also an additional 4 million Alawites, the religion of the ruling party. What will happen to all these people? The rebels will want revenge and will kill,persecute,and expel these minorities out of Syria. Who is willing to accept 6 million + refugees? Remember Iraq? What used to be a flourishing Christian community there has been emptied and all that remains are Muslims who began a civil war, Sunni vs. Shiite. Under Assad, there is stability and freedom of religion. People must understand, you can not make a Muslim country democratic overnight. These people are used to living under dictatorships for the last thousand plus years. Assad had slowly opened the door for political reforms because he knew it would be a slow process if it was to be effective. Look at Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia right now. It has been over a year since the revolutions there, and things are worse than before they started. With the Muslim Brotherhood taking power there, and with a large Muslim Brotherhood population in Syria, who knows what the future will bring? Arming the rebels will only cause more violence, and, if Assad falls, those weapons will make their way into the wrong hands.
Dear Madam,
All the dictators - every where-everytime- behaving the same way/.-pure minded persons-it is a shame that west can not presuate such persons that their personal (this what usually are interested for) benefit is to cooperate.-Promise to Assad a statue in Times square and he will be the "lamb" of the middle east.
Dear Madam,
Many of the comments seem to take the view that the alternatives are 1) to intervene on the scale of Libya or greater, probably (given the geographic and physical constraints) with boots on the ground, or 2) to take no military action at all. But is that really the limit of the alternatives?
Suppose, for example, military intervention was limited to a bunch of drone strikes on the tanks which are surrounding and shelling cities. Would that turn the tide militarily? Likely not.
But what would it do? A lot of Assad's supporters are not so much partisans as supporters of convenience. They don't necessarily care for Assad, but are not (yet) convinced that he will be gone. So they provide at least passive support. But even that small level of military support for the rebels would send the message that Assad is history -- the only question is when and at what cost. At which point, they have an incentive to cut their losses and withdraw their support. And if the business community drops Assad, he is on the fast track to defeat.
So, massive military intervention? Probably not a great idea. Even if it were driven primarily by the Arabs and accomplished by the Turks (the only ones in the region with the military capability to do anything useful). But a military gesture? Just might reduce significantly the number of casualties before Assad is gone.
Dear Madam,
I disagree with the motion and cannot resist adding my voice to those below who emphasize the predicament of the set-upon syrian people.
I appreciate the volatile dynamics underlying the conflict and the great difficulty of achieving an 'acceptable' outcome for all of the internal and external stakeholders (a prerequisite for long-term stability).
Nontheless I cannot help but feel that the ongoing loss of life and the ongoing humanitarian abuses are intolerable, both in syria itself and in the example it sets to dictators elsewhere. Something must be done to stop the killing immediately.
Military intervention means shelling of Damascus by foreign forces in which thousands more will die following by prolonged civil war which scores of people will die or become refugies. Arming disconnected groups of thugs and paramilitary of so-called "opposition" is also a non-starter. It will lead to more intense fighting, violence spilling into other regions of the country and further casualties.
Dear Ma'am,
There is no oil in Syria, so why bother intervening?
Everything else is just politics.
Assassinate the dictator based on the logic found in the Yamashita standard. The next dictator to arrive will be somewhat more wary, and so on as the assassinations continue until the civil war ends. Eliminating belligerent leaders quickly was one of the lessons from WW2. It took civil Western societies a few years to realise that to strike at the head was the only way to effectively defeat the serpent, if you grab its tail as we do now with sanctions it will just bite you. If we in civilized society have not learned from our mistakes we are doomed to continue making them, in Syria, Iran, North Korea, and half a dozen other place where death mongers rule.
Dear Madam,
Military intervention is a mistake at present. Invasion could cause a huge war in the Middle East in which Iran may decide to defend its ally Syria militarily. This war would ruin the oil sector for years. This war could drag in Israel, Hizbollah, and Hamas, with the opportunity for those Arab nations who despise Israel to unite against them and America. Unless the UN can agree diplomatically on something, the killings will most likely continue, sadly, if only to prevent even more bloodshed.
Dear Madam,
It should realy be up to neiboring countries to be involved. "Players" such as US, Russia, China makes Syria an arena for global rivalry, thus stalling any progress. Even if consensus in UN is achieved, intervention by western countries has a great chance of "bitter end". However I support intervention, but preferably by Arab League countries.
At this stage diplomacy does more harm then good, as it is sending unclear messages to Syria's opposition.
I want to live in a world of peace, but I want peace to be achieved without further violence, hence I disagree with millitary intervention. In every war, whether its a civil or a war between countries, both sides have their own causes which they believe in as a good moral reason.In my view, residing with one side of this kind of conflict cannot be easily justified.
Dear Madam,
Syria is Libya 2.0
al Bashir is Qaadafi 2.0
Homs is Misrata 2.0
Syrian Army is Libyan Government Para Military State sponsored terrorism 2.0
Syrians are Libyans 2.0
Like Libya, Syria can rely on China and Russia for UN Security Council vetoes to block any world intervention.
Libya had 75,000 deaths before Qaadafi was finally killed
Syria has 7500 deaths. It will reach 100,000 deaths.
like Libya, there is a coffin shortage in Syria.
The solution will be the same.
Dear Madam,
While the Western governments and the media are losing their precious time in discussions, not only the Syrian people is being butchered but all our ideals of democracy and freedom - and what is left of our humanity.
Dear Madam,
Sometimes you need to rip off the scab to allow a wound to heal properly. Assad is that scab.
Dear Madam,
The problem of people like "Mr" Assad" is their disability to understand their misery position in case of a Western military intervention.Same with ex Libya dictator, same in Iraq, same in Iran.If someone of their own people was able to explain to them their fate if such an intervention be occured, then a good cooperation could be achieved.
Dear Madam,
One big question must be replied before any intervetion ."What we will get out of it? a better or worst situation?" Maybe is much better to convince present regime to co-operate than to help a "possible"new Talipan regime to be established.
Dear Madam,
I would like to notice that, if any negotiations are going to happen, it should be held with the oppositions, not the Assad authority. As far as the oppositions are the future of Syria, therefore holding meetings & proposing agenda with Mr. Assad is worthless.
Furthermore, negotiating with the opposition could ease any diplomatic or militant approach.
Dear Madam,
Military intervention is not an option in Syria for NATO or western democracies. The Arab League has to work with Syria to solve the issues, maybe diplomacy there will help. The west cannot be seen to be attacking a Muslim Country once again , it will be used to fuel hatred, through the narrative of west's atrocities in muslim world. We have to stop being policeman of the world , and let internal problems of nations be dealt internally.
Dear Madam
How can the world sit & watch the massacre of plenty people by a dictator & take no action? I live in the Middle East & I know the circumstance of this region better that any other. I know that this place is no land for diplomacy. People are dying because of Russian & Chinese veto right, & for sure their own benefits. It is so obvious that the world does not consider Syria & her people. How many should die so we decide to help?
Dear Madam,
In case of foreign (western) military intervention, where should the bombs fall to protect syrian civilians? Libya or Serbia, the last almost purely air interventions, featured clear frontlines behind which the countries military could not hide in hostile villages and cities, and in Libyas case a desert that made spotting military targets rather easy.
But, how exactly can another country hit Syrias military when it hides in civilian houses? When the closest equivalent of frontlines in Syria are within large cities? And who is willing to establish and defend a safety zone when being attacked by Syrian ground forces?
This potential war compares not well to Serbia or Libya. It reminds me of Afghanistan and Somalia. The intervention would do more harm than good, the motion is correct.
Dear Madam,
I wish to comment on the following comments of Mr Shadi Hamid:
"A credible threat would embolden the opposition, encourage low-to-mid-level regime defections, and demonstrate to the Sunni business elite in Aleppo and Damascus that their long-term interests do not, and will not, lie with the regime."
This is clearly a partisan statement. This statement clearly shows that many Sunnis are supporting Mr Assad's regime. They supported him before this "uprising" and are still supporting him.
Mr Hamid is suggesting a strategy to erode this support.
Surely what is wanted is for peace to be restored as it was before and not military victory for the Sunnis who would surely take revenge on the minority.
Why is pressure not put on the opposition to negotiate? In the beginning Mr Assad was very reasonable, but now clearly the regime is fighting for its life and this is being instigated from the outside.
Instead of suggesting a strategy for a military victory of the Sunnis, and then the chaos and slaughter we have seen in Libya, where extremist elements have taken advantage of the situation, why not suggest a strategy for the warring parties to stop fighting and come to the negotiating table?
Dear Madam,
In 1994, the world stood with arms akimbo, while ethnic cleansing developed and matured in Rwanda. Similar atrocities has been described in Sudan, and Somalia seems to be a country in endemic war. Today, the world is standing by again, while Syria is fast developing into a full fledged civil crisis. Who will mediate, is begging for an answer. The United States still reeling from a decade of two fronted war and economic crisis is not eager to take a unilateral action. Europe with its economic woes and an army of Boys scout, will not do so and China is only interested in economic advantage and perhaps, what she can make out of any crisis will not intervene. The fate of Syrian people is in their hand and the voice of the people will always trounce the voice of one man.
Dear Madam, we have already seen that much more harm than good has been accomplished during the past year with 6000+ Syrians massacred by their regime. Further, Western intervention in Libya has been premised on the safety of civilians from Ghaddafi's military - while the motion is a cover for Assad's military to do exactly what Ghaddafi has been denied. It is clear that the international community has lost its moral courage & conscience when it comes to Syria. What the West needs to do is intervene militarily with targeted strikes against Assad's killing machine -- so that the Red Cross can move in and provide humanitarian supplies to the poor people of Syria. Baby formulas are running out in severe supply. How can we stand and let them suffer?
As long as the US stays out of it, I am willing to tolerate talk of intervention by others to put some muscle behind diplomacy (and maybe even action later on). Say from other, non-German NATO allies, and neighboring countries (or Turkey in both instances).
The Assads have lost their mandate to rule, but it is not the US' problem or business to get involved.
Dear Madam,
The debate is consistently framed wrongly by the opposition. The question is not whether the international ought to do all in its power to prevent bloodshed -- certainly it should. But is there a viable strategy on the table offering high odds of reducing, rather than increasing, the loss of life? The military option is perhaps the most extreme form of intervention, but the ability to save lives using weapons is not a foregone conclusion.
Dear Madam,
The longer the civil war drags out, the worse it will be for almost all parties involved. Syria's government seems unlikely to discontinue the violence or make sufficient changes to its system. Syria's opposition is unlikely to stop fighting for the rights they so definitely deserve.
The longer this civil war drags out, the more likely reprisals against groups that support/tolerate the Syrian regime will take place. Sectarian conflict is much less likely to happen when there's not several years of bloody civil war to blame on Syria's various minorities.
Incidentally, to the people claiming that 7,000 dead civilians (or rebels, who are in any case just armed civilians) isn't enough of a impetus for us to intervene, two points.
First, the 7,000 figure is likely to be lower than the actual amount of those killed. At LEAST 7,000 would be a better description.
Second, where would you propose we draw the line? Ten thousand? 20? How many Syrians have to die before intervention becomes a good option?
Dear Madam,
Clearly intervention in Syria is an issue of difficulty, as the region is unstable due to the various borderw that Syria shares. Therefore, we need to behave towards the Syrian people in such a way that they beloeve us to be friends and allies, otherwise diplomacy in the region will be much more difficult. Where were you? They will say, in our hour of need? Intervention is not a popular move, and it is plain why, after the fiascos that occured concerning Iraq, however the danger of being excluded from the region is too grat. I understand the cncern that others have displayed, the region is dangerous, but the Arab league wants intervention, and so do all bu 2 of the UN security council. Russia and China fear setting a precedent of overthrowing tyrannical regimes, and their actions are clearly motivated out of self interest. Diplomacy has failed to end the bloodshed, failure to intrvene could mean permanent exclusion from this fragil region.
Dear Madam,
Lybia (and a while back now, Serbia) established what can be considered a 'precident' for a western bombing run in a foreign country. Namely, that it be a practical option, that it be a 'least bad' option in an already dire situation, and that we have full support from both the region and the internal party we're choosing to side with.
Syria is fast approaching that situation. Pacifism for its own sake does nothing for those about to crushed by the Assad regime for no other crime than wanting a say in the running of their own country.
Dear Madam,
A year ago a group of disaffected anti-government rebels took to the streets in Syria with a "me too" approach to social rebellion, following the turmoil in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. Their demand was the overthrow of Assad,period. That may or may not be justified in the grand scheme of things, but with no clear agenda, no identifiable leadership and little to offer the outside world as serious justification for their sympathy, how can these rebels endorse the chaos that would inevitably ensue from military intervention? A diplomatically arranged cease-fire is the only common-sense goal, if indeed common sense still prevails.
Dear Madam,
How long should the international communities wait to intervene in Syria? Maybe till the country mad man kills half of the population. In my opinion, the U.S and the EU have no interest helping Syria because there are any "natural resources" incentive to do so.
Dear Madam,
Is this a Hobson's choice or are we allowed to help the sitting government? The question is not one of harm or good but would intervention result in a better situation or are we just changing despots? We don't like the killing, but every country has subdued its people at one time or another in civil wars or just plain genocide. Why choose this one to intervene? If the neighboring countries who are most closely affected want to intervene, we can support them if we are not asked to pay the price for their folly.
Dear Madam,
it is all well and good to deride intervention, but rarely has freedom sprung when intervention has not ocurred. The US had the assistance of France and Spain, often easily forgotten, and many other nations have had their democracy created through dint of arms. The question isn't whether or not intervention is necessary, but of what scope and whom should be doing it. Preferably, I'd like to see a nation like Turkey lead a mission whose object is defensive, and see what Syria dare do. Ignoring this crisis, or pretending that we dare not intervene, simply because there are "cons", is ignoring a basic principle: the cons of war *always* outweight the pros. That doesn't mean they do not occasionally need to be fought.
Dear Madam,
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history . . . . c.f. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.
Dear Madam,why would I be happy to shoot up the Somali pirates, but unhappy to enter Syria as a policeman? That is however the case.
Dear Madam,
Military intervention in Syria will undoubtedly fall on the shoulders of the United States. 1. We can't afford it. 2. We don't need to police the world anymore. The United States needs to worry about paying its own bills, rather than saving the oppressed people of the world. At some point, the Chinese and Indian governments must accept that with their increasing influence comes increasing responsibility.
Dear Madam,
I think that the international community must be much more careful in dealing with Syria than with nations such as Libya. Syria s a very heterogeneous country and would probably see widespread sectarian violence that would almost inevitably lead to he destruction of the Christian community as has happened throughout the 20th Century in nearly every nation in the Arab world. The political dynamic in Syria looks very similar to Iraq. It has a dictator from a minority sect holding the country's various ethnic, religious and tribal groups together.
On another note it would be a positive development to see Iran lose an important ally. I do not believe however that forcing a regime change in Syria will weaken Iran to the point that it capitulates on the nuclear and terrorist issues and will therefore do nothing more than unleash serious civil war.
On the humanitarian side. It is very difficult to justify international intervention when the scale of the killing is so low. While it is fairy arbitrary, the nternational community, specifically the United States, needs to set a number where it considers intervention t be justified and that wll unfortunately have to exclude intervening in some having armed places.
Dear Madam,
Intervention in Syria would be a serious mistake. Mr Assad for all his faults has provided a stable Syria and protection to minorities.
He and his Baath regime is nothing like Ghaddafi and his Libya.
It is true that the situation there is bad and no one condones the deaths of civilians in the current fighting. But the truth is the current fighting is a low grade civil war and any Government needs to win in such a war in order to survive.
The uprising has been encouraged and stoked by countries such as Saudi Arabia, where human rights violations have been far worse and freedoms are virtually non-existent.
Intervention will only result in the massacre of the minority Shias and human rights violations on a scale unprecedented by anything seen so far.
Dear Madam,
While a military intervention may seem like the only option to protect the Syrian people, the cons outweigh the pros significantly. I believe that the only viable option to stop the conflict is through diplomacy. If the international community decides to intervene militarily, we could have a quagmire on our hands. I have to disagree with the argument floating around that the success seen in Libya could translate to Syria. My main problem with this is that Syria has Iran on its side with Russian weapons supplied to the government. Suppose the U.N. decides to go into Syria, there is a strong possibility that Iran could get involved militarily on behalf of the Assad regime which could prove to be catastrophic for both sides. Although the present situation is dire, the world should not act impulsively and think that violence is the only solution. A concerted diplomatic effort with the backing of Russia and China that isolates both Syria and Iran will allow for the Assad regime to be severely weakened. Thus, I ask for international institutions to find a peaceful solution to this crisis.
Dear Madam,
Soon all diplomatic solutions will be ineffective and military intervention will be necessary to halt the ongoing massacre of the Syrian people. As someone mentioned before it does not make sense for us to say we are supporting democratic change in the Middle East and support the Libyans but abandon the Syrians who are undergoing the wore government crackdown in the region. We will never see stability in this region if we continue to allow dictators to violate the rights of their citizens. Our failure to act now will hurt us in the future, the United States is positioning itself on the wrong side of history.
Dear Madam,
I wouldn't support an intervention in Syria, since its outcome won't be a good one. First of all Al Qaeda is backing that uprising, Bashar Al Assad may
be a dictator but like Mubarak or Gadaffi he is a secular one, in fact he's been fighting against radical islamism and Syria is actually one of the last countries in Mid.East where the Christians aren't persecuted. A possible downfall Of Assad's regime would increase radical islamism and discrimination against minorities.
History repeat itself because of people who don't learn from it, looks like the West has not learned from the aftermath of the Shah, I'm sure they would prefer Iran being a secular republic than an Islamic one.
Dear Madam,
How is the situation in Syria different or more tolerable than the situation in Libya? Mr. Assad has used unjustifiable levels of violence through his military against his own people to sustain the power of his minority Alawite government. If he now faces an armed insurrection, it is the making of his own brutal tactics.
The common thread of the defenders of the notion is that "people should be left alone to sort out there own problems". I am in complete agreement with this sentiment. But if "leaving people along" means letting their autocratic government butcher them en masse, then I have to disagree. The Syrian people are certainly trying to settle their affairs - without Mr. Assad - and the international community should help them.
Russia doesn't want to lose another client for its arm exporters. China is afraid of setting precedents for its own autocratic control over restive provinces. Yet the rest of the world need not hesitate due to the self-interested obstructionism of these Security Council members.
The Arab League and Turkey should lead the way, but need the backing of the United States for any plan to be effective.
A progressive series of actions aimed at building pressure on Mr. Assad's regime would allow diplomacy time to work, and provide legitimation if it should fail. Economic sanctions are already in place; add to these a no fly zone over beleaguered cities; then "safe zones" within Syria for civilians; escalating to indictments of Mr. Assad and his top officials in the International Court of Justice should he continue his ruthless campaign on the ground; and finally, an aerial campaign to destroy the Assad regime's military capability to inflict harm upon the Syrian populace and his overthrow.
Mr. Assad could end the escalation at any time by withdrawing his military and police forces to their barracks and holding free and open elections (with international, Arab League monitors to ensure the validity of the results).
The Arab people finally have a chance to replace their unelected, unaccountable elitist leadership with truly representative government. They should not let Mr. Assad, or the leaders of Russia and China, stand in their way.
For many years, we in the USA, have been very great at imposing our wishes on other people. We are a unique democracy, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to be of the same persuasion. Leave the rest of the world alone. Let them make their own decisions. If it required Civil War, so be it, but let's quit intervention.
Dear all,
I believe that the situation in Syria is the same as those ones in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine and so on. People should solve their problems by themselves and with supports from others if requested. The guardianship is more likely to be imposed by Western Governments on people in those ares which is unfair. Western Governments, please let us decide how to live.
Dear Madam,
Just like the US in the beginning of WW2, we should apply severe trade embargos to force the Syrian government to the negotiation table to solve the situation diplomatically.
From the moment that this no longer works, we should work to supply the rebel side with equal equipment and support in order to bring the situation to a stalemate and force negotiation from both sides instead of genocide. Only syrians can solve the Syrian problem.
In Bahrein, Saudi Arabia´s military intervention took place last year. It was something similar to the Soviet invasion of Hungary. The civil rights of the overwhelming Shia majority in Bahrein don´t exist. What happens in Bahrein is another consequence of Britain´s awful past, a past of invasion and enslaving in a great part of the World, which have left dozens of problems everywhere.
Dear Madam, I hate to see this level of human suffering, but the situation seems so confused that I have little hope that any outside intervention can help, particularly coming from the West.
Dear Madam,
Would military intervention solve the core of Syria's political problem? Or would it simply create more future problems after the Free Syria Army's victory in this bloody war? Libya has recently upstaged Muanmmar Gaddafi, and the result? A country with a shackled economy, poor sanitation, high infant mortality rate, and Sirte, one of the most beautiful countries in Arab, has turned into a massive junkyard. Finding a leader would already pose a tremendous problem to the Libyans, what more rebuilding the entire country from scratch? No doubt such massive destruction would require colossal amount of time to reverse its adverse conditions.
However, Shadi Hamid has made a very valid statement that it would be a fantasised utopia for Assad to be persuaded in stopping the massacre and enter peaceful negotiations. We can't let this civilian war continue. The death toll has rocketed pass 4000, and we can't let this figure rise any further. The idea of military intervention is definitely inevitable at this point of time, but we should carefully consider the aftermath of such decisive move, considering the case of Libyan revolution. In my perspective, after successfully bringing down Assad, foreign members should first accelerate the anointment of a right leader and ensure political stability within the country. After establishing political stability, monetary aid should be given in order to repair the country's economy and infrastructure.
Dear Madam, I supported the Lybian intervention wholeheartedly, but I believe Husain is right. The situation on the ground is too confused to allow for any kind of military intervention. There is no, wide-ranging opposition group to which resources could be funneled. At this stage of the conflict, military support comes dangerously close to picking sides.
Dear Madam, I support an intervention in Syria and here I want to make a point beyond the clear interest of civilians in the area. The intervention presents itself has an unprecedented occasion for the development of a regional pattern for the arab world as it is the African Union for central and south Africa and the European Union for Europe. The Arab League, leaded by a Turkish's intervention may for the first time start taking the burden of the creation of a pan-arab "state". Turkey, a model for the new muslim republics of the arab spring and main contender of the role of opponent of Israel along with Iran, in this situation, showing leaderships and independence from the NATO in the intervention may finally emancipate from the idea of being the periphery of Europe and embrace the historical role of center of a new, better, Ottoman Empire. Pan-Arabism is the only way to solve the problems of the Region, I know that military option, although it is a disgraceful one, at the very end will benefit the mankind.
Dear Madam, Hamid's right- but military interventions shouldn't be Western. I think that intervention by The West has never, ever gone well- Iraq twice, Kuwait, Israel, Afghanistan, etc. The Arabs should solve this by themselves, with intervention by Arabs. The Arab Awakening has brought democracy to most of the Mid East, now they should solve their own internal problems, preferably effectively, and not stand around.
Dear Madam,my point is that military intervention is not good for solution of the question but make thing worse. and no matter US. or British or French can't avoid loss of life if there is military mission.

subset: commoncrawl