The Arab Spring

Actually, I've read at least one report on the situation that stated that the US had a decent thing going before the shift over to UN forces, which opened up the perception among warlords that attacks would regain their political power, which in turn led to all-out hostility and the formation of Task Force Ranger. After all, in late 1992 and early 1993, the peacekeeping mission looked like it had every chance of succeeding.

I can hear the salivating from here.

Name one constructive thing that ever arose out of such large scale carnage.

Let's not have this derail, please.

I say split it three ways among the three entities evenly, THEN split it within the province based on city size et al.

Otherwise East and South get screwed over again for the West, if you go into giving the money away directly to the municipalities.

@Sabre's Edge: I thought they pulled out because of the escalating losses of troops, with the proverbial straw being that one US soldier who had been killed, mutilated, and dragged by Somali insurgent militiamen on live TV.

I didn't say that I personally approve of such a solution; all I'm saying is that the most obvious one for this particular problem (given that it's degenerated into a terminal cancer-like state) if you're going for purely pragmatic practicality/feasibility, irrespective of PR damage and/or moral questionability. And I'd like to note that I did say that I'm hoping that Libya doesn't end up falling into the same state.

But yeah, as Best Of notes, we should stop this derail now.

edited 31st Mar '12 5:48:44 AM by MarqFJA

Great, the Syrian regime is talking bullshit again.

Ah, the usual.

Do they look like they're cracking up?

@Marq JFA: losses were extremely low up to June 1993 or so, mainly because the warlords weren't fighting the mainly-American-led force. After June, or whenever it was that the UN took the lead, the warlords began fighting, and the peacekeeping forces started fighting back. That's when casualties started to mount. Still, it wasn't slow gradual attrition. It was the 19 KIA and about 80 WIA in one day.

Out of the conference in Istanbul, where most Arab states acknowledged the Syrian National Council as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, rather surprising news emerged.

Before I get to the surprising bit, I should mention that Iran, China and Russia weren't present.

Anyway, some wealthy Arab states have agreed to give the Syrian National Council huge financial backing; and as a consequence, the SNC announced that defectors from the Syrian military, as well as members of the Free Syrian Army, will get a salary.

Now they have no answer if Assad says they're being paid by foreign powers, as that will no longer be a lie. I hope the gains to be made from paying the resistance will be worth the diplomatic flak that is bound to come from this.

edited 1st Apr '12 11:26:32 AM by BestOf

Huh. An interesting side-effect will be how it will unify the Syrian opposition. If the SNC is now the one with the money, everybody will follow them, something that... wasn't entirely certain before, let's say. The SNC so far was never the relatively united force the Libyan NTC has been.

I don't think the diplomatic flak matters, just the fact that gulf states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia will inevitably funnel money to Salafi groups. Not only is this bad for the country's future, but it plays into Assad's hands.

Also: the BCC is reporting that Tuareg rebels have taken Timbuktu What now? Will the rebels stop? Or will they attack south Mali? West Niger?

That's a relief. Hell, even before today the money given to radical groups was small.

edited 1st Apr '12 11:52:14 AM by kyfhv

Saudi Arabia wanted to just hand out weapons to the Syrian opposition, but the West didn't wanna go that far; having the Saudis and their buddies start pumping dough into the SNC's accounts to be forwarded to the fighters was a compromise where both the Western powers and the Saudis caved in.

With this context established, I don't think it's gonna be easy for the Saudis to favour Salafists over everybody else in the opposition, at least until Assad is gone, at which point the West will hopefully embark on a (political, not military) campaign against the extremist elements.

Didn't the West funnel money to a rebel group through the Saudi's in the 80s? The name of the group escapes me but I'm sure that plan already happened.

The Saudis have plenty of money of their own, no need for the West to funnel theirs through them.

There is when you don't want to get caught

The best way not to get caught is not to use your own money...

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has selected a presidential candidate. His name is Khairat el-Shater. Technically, he's running for the Freedom and Justice Party.

Also, according to witnesses, Syrian security forces crossed the border into Lebanon and fired at rebels hiding there. "On Tuesday, residents of the mountainous area of Masharia al-Qaa said Syrian soldiers had followed FSA fighters over the border with Lebanon and fired rocket-propelled grenades and machine-guns at them."

If the war gets more sectarian than it already is, that won't be the last time they cross the border...

I think that funnelling money to arm rebel groups is a disastrous policy that shouldn't even be considered. Yes I know there is an impasse with the Russians and the Chinese and this plan to bypass them but an angry Russia is bad for the EU, and an angry China is bad for the USA.

I've frankly stopped caring. If Russia and China can't act like grown-ups at the international stage, then they can't complain when other countries go around them.

Reality cannot be ignored, and something as large as Russia and China must certainly count as reality.

They are acting no differently than how we have acted or how the French have act or how the Americans have acted for the last 50 years. They are in engaging in Realpolitik and we have to find a way to some how see an intervention in Syria as something that is in their strategic interests.

Realpolitik needs to be killed dead.

Can't do it. Only way for that to happen is a world nation and that ain't happening.

And in anycase, intervention for its own sake may not be a good enough idea either because of aforementioned sectarian tensions that could take AT LEAST three countries down. Even if Russia is doing it for its own interests, they're likely to be vindicated in their opposition because of the instability we're inviting in the region.

I too do not like giving money to the rebels. They're still not unified enough nor do we know exactly what to expect from them. This isn't Libya...

Even world government wouldn't stop realpolitik.

Because said government is still made up of people. Anyway, this isn't really the topic.