Should The West Intervene In Syria?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Everything the international community has done so far in Syria has had virtually no effect, says Steve Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The growing number of deaths has led to calls for some sort of Western intervention. Cook tells NPR's Raz that anything short of a direct intervention is unlikely to have a positive outcome.

"It is time to at least start a debate about what international intervention might look like," Cook says, "whether it's a no-fly zone ... whether it is arming the opposition [or] whether it is the introduction of troops in order to separate the opposition from the Syrian military."

Although he supports the Arab League's efforts with observers in Syria and the power of the people's movement, Cook says there are limits to what they can do.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/22/145610499/should-the-west-intervene-in-syria

Per standard answer at this point, if you have ANY questions on the content of that story, go to their contact form...

http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx

I got my opinion, but at this point do not care to say much on this. Suffice it to say things are going where some of us said it was and was called a conspiracy theory.

[Muskypundit]

1. I actually dont think we will need to.

I think the Arab league is serious

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. We have this pattern now

all I will say.

[Muskypundit]

15. To that I will say that Russia sees the same thing too.

Hence their ships and weapons sitting in Syrian ports. Not only are we not going to be able to do anything in Syria, we don't have to. Al Assad will be either dead or disposed of by the years end.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. They are there to dissuade us

And they are at the port of Tartus.

[tabatha]

18. Actually, the rumor is they are being loaded with gold and art work from Syria.

I think Assad is going to go away.

[Muskypundit]

19. Well thats what I am saying.

I can't see us attacking Syria with the Russians defending it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. You got mail

Any serious analysis cannot be done on the open here... that is my feeling anymore. And especially if we need to mention the unmentionable that shares a border... or if you chose, facebook. Here, cannot be done.

Suffice it to say though 3:1 advantage at the very least right now.

[zappaman]

23. Uh oh

That sounds sooper-dooper classified!

[jwirr]

2. When this first started I thought it was just about saber rattling for the political effect. But it

it seems to be going on a lot longer. This is dangerous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. This is the early stage of that

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. What does FB say about it?

[zappaman]

5. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

That's super-dooper classified!

Oh, and the answer to the OP question is NO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I would worry far more about the Department of State

but whatever... I have come to realize folks can't nor want to read.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. Don't you think that Newt is a complete amoral pig? nt

[rhett o rick]

4. Some people cant handle the truth. nm

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I know

a certain speech has come to mind repeatedly.

[pintobean]

7. I thought NPR wasn't SERIOUS ELITE.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I promised you fluf

here you go

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/assignment_america/main5347232.shtml

That is what you want.

[pintobean]

12. CBS?

Not SERIOUS ELITE, either.

[zappaman]

13. was it CBS?

Cuz I can't nor want to read.
Golly, I wish I was smarter!

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. But those folks do not run doggie stories

they are immaterial. And I am not going to try to explain to you what I mean by that comment... sorry. It requires a level of media knowledge that requires a serious discussion. But hey, here you go more stories for you.

http://www.27bslash6.com/missy.html

No, sorry that is not media... but hey...

You happy now? THat is the kind of unserious person I think you are.

[zappaman]

16. Well, I love it

And it looks like she confirmed her sources like a reporter is supposed to do!
Thanks Nadin!

[pintobean]

20. Yes, please don't explain anything

even if you think you can. Your readers are confused enough, as it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Not to you anyway

But will continue to give you the wanted fluff... so there.

And if you HATE these posts these much... I am highly confused as to why you waste your time. I know I don't, so there.

Have a good day

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. What about your view of Newt? Agree that he's a pervert? nt

[pintobean]

34. I like ice cream. I just finished a bowl.

[pampango]

24. Not without authorization from the UN. If the UN does not act then Syrian civilians

will continue to suffer and die until Assad's repression succeeds or enough of his military defects to convince him to leave.

As bad as that is, unilateral interventions by individual countries or regional groups will one day be a thing of the past.The UN adopted its Responsibility to Protect civilians in 2005. That does not authorize unilateral interventions but gives the global body the responsibility to do so if certain conditions are met.

If Russia (or any other country) wants to block R2P in a particular instance, they then have to live with the consequences of that and, of course, run the risk that if Assad falls anyway, the Syrian people will probably not favorably remember Russia's actions in support of him.

[joshcryer]

32. Correct, and as it stands now a small peacekeeping force, the "blue helmets" should be able...

...to keep the thing from escalating.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. More on the discussion

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/debating-western-intervention-in-syria/251576/

No comment... and argue with the editors at the Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/contact/

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. Nope, but do we ordinary folk have any say at all? nt

[riverwalker]

27. at least we finally discussing options

turning up the radio to drown out the screams only works for so long.

[demosincebirth]

29. No Oil.

[joshcryer]

31. Unilaterally?

FUCK NO!

[David__77]

33. Absolutely not militarily.

It was pretty clear from the beginning this is where things were headed; if not intervention itself, everything short of it. The Syrian government will have some hard choices to make. I believe it has in its hands the power to quell an insurgency, but it would come at a very high price.

[joshcryer]

35. I'm not sure they can do that now.

It's one thing to silence a city through mass killing on the onset of protests, but it's another thing entirely to do it when the whole world is watching.

[David__77]

36. Watching, but what else?

I personally don't think they will, but for other reasons. If martial law were implemented, tanks rolled out, evacuations and mass arrests conducted, etc., I'm not so sure who would stop this or how. THAT said, I believe that people's war - popular warfare - can succeed. If there is the subjective (political) basis for a revolutionary seizure of power in Syria, then that could happen absent foreign intervention of any kind at all. There are plenty of left-wing opposition forces (mainly communists), people who have been fighting the Baathists politically and militarily for decades, who are implacable in their opposition to the Syrian state, and who also are just as adamant in opposition any foreign intervention. The fundamentalist forces might despise those leftists more than the Baathists. Anyway....

[joshcryer]

37. The question is how much the "Free Syria" 'forces' would fight back.

It's one thing to use tear gas and mostly non-lethal methods to silence protesters. It's another thing entirely to try to silence protesters who have within them armed elements who can fight back, thus making it significantly harder to non-lethally squash dissent.

I put 'forces' in single quotes there because it's unclear how large their armed population is. Every video I see, it is very difficult to find an armed protester. In Libya, after the sack of the police barracks, you could see arms fairly easy (though I still maintain most were unarmed, it was certainly more prevalent there). So I am not convinced they have significant forces.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I am not agnostic on the matter

but I will have to be on DU... at this point I am just bringing to your attention the pattern that is emerging... this conversation has moved from absolute elite media (not in the way Republicans or some people here mean it... those are meant at the governing and economic elites), down to the next two rungs... that be the WAPO\NYT, that is the beltway... and down to the next run... now NPR... it will continue to make it's way down into tertiary papers soon.

Suffice it to say at this point this matter cannot be discussed here, in any serious manner... so I will leave it at that.

If and when the shooting starts. (Well at that point that analysis will NOT be here, but at other places)

The only thing that seems to matter, well that is the beauty con... err primaries and dog byte man stories... so be it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. and then there is this

The opposition Syrian National Council has formally asked the league to refer the crisis to the UN Security Council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16670007

Now there is a familiar pattern there.

[Zalatix]

40. Western nations sticking their noses in the Middle East? Again? Sorry, but I say