HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Shankapotomus » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Mon Oct 18, 2010, 08:13 AM
Number of posts: 4,840

Journal Archives

Syria conflict a strategic blessing in disguise?

Of course not a blessing because of the civilian casualties but because the two combative sides are, in western eyes, a traditional and repressive government and terrorist aided extreme Islamists.

Putting aside the problem of civilian casualties for just one moment (I'll get to it in a second), isn't having both these two traditional enemies locked in a long drawn out conflict with themselves, endlessly exhausting their own fighters and resources on each other instead of our resources, a strategic win for us if we can just address the issue of civilian casualties without interfering militarily with the conflict?

What I'm proposing is, if we are going to try to get the UN and Europe to commit resources for a military strike anyway (or worse, a long drawn out conflict), why not, instead of unified military action, ask them to commit to relocation of any civilian Syrians that want it? If we can get a lot countries to participate and spread the burden out, would it be anymore inconvienant than devoting resources to military action?

In this way, a non-military solution is proposed to avoid further civilian atrocities, while allowing our enemies to waste their attention and resources on each other instead of us and existing targets we are there to protect.

It depletes their resources, conserves our military and yet is still is an active solution to further civilian atrocities by mobilizing the UN nations in the non-intrusive activity of relocating Syrian civilians that want out.

Is this logistically possible? Or am I proposing a pipe dream?
Posted by Shankapotomus | Fri Aug 30, 2013, 08:39 AM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1