You're wrong about things being unable to get any worse—and about not needing boots on the ground to topple Assad.
For one, there isn't all-out sectarian slaughter going on at the moment. Right now, Assad has maneuvered things so that his party can portray itself as the protector of Syria's minorities—and those minorities believe him. Assad has disproportionately promoted fellow Alawites into positions of power, and now those Alawites fear that if their protector were to fall, they'll all be purged or executed along with him. And the damned thing is, they might actually be right. There's a lot of sectarian resentment bubbling under the surface. Unless the opposition unifies and promises that it will clamp down on any anti-Alawite actions, and even then, Assad's core power bloc will remain intact.
That's how Syria is different from Libya: there are still very significant portions of the population who support Assad. The Syrian Army is suffering from manpower drain due to defections, but it's not anywhere near the rate that the Libyan army suffered, too; it'd be tempting to compare Syria to Libya, but it'd be inaccurate.
As for Assad, the bastard's grip on power is still relatively secure. Sending arms to the rebels is a popular suggestion, but if and only if you're willing to support a drawn-out proxy conflict
against the Syrian regime and its supporters in Tehran, and possibly Moscow as well. It will be very messy; think the Contras versus the Sandinistas. It will almost certainly encourage factionalization between the different rebel groups, as some will receive arms from the US, some from the Gulf Council, some from other groups. Think Afghanistan versus the Soviets: all arms had to pass through Pakistan, so that the most influential, most successful groups ended up being Pakistani proxies: the Haqqanis spring to mind. And it will be a certainty that the goals of the West, the Gulf states, and the rebels won't all line up.
So: if you're for sending arms to Syria, you're willing to accept the possibility of sustaining a drawn-out, potentially all-versus-all civil war that might still get quashed by the Assad regime. That kind of decision is not one to be taken lightly, any more than the other decisions.
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.In addition, while Assad is sick and needs to be toppled, who is to say the various opposition groups won't fight among themselves for control of Syria after he is toppled? Yeah, Assad is horrible, but Syria still could be worse.
If the opposition unites, then there will at least be a stable regime after Assad is toppled.
edited 19th Mar '12 11:21:31 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyIn the meanwhile, this looks like a very clever way
to put the pressure on Russia and China. It's indirect economics: traditionally, when a new government replaces the old one via revolution, it assumes the old government's debts and contracts; no point pissing off the companies that still have investments in your country.
Basically, in addition to trade sanctions, the international community declares that all contracts signed with the Assad regime are null and void. Let's say Assad borrows $500mil to buy weapons, only to get kicked out and replaced. What this new economic ruling does would be to say to the new government, "you don't have to pay back the $500mil debt Assad incurred; you're free to start on a blank slate."
Now think of what this means from the eyes of a Russian arms manufacturer or a Chinese oil importer. Suddenly investment in Syria looks like an extremely risky option; after all, if it falls, the new government may not feel inclined to give you your money back, and they'll have international opinion on their side. Suddenly, instead of accepting credit for that shipload of artillery shells, you'll be demanding cash up front.
So: not a silver-bullet solution; it's not going to immediately turn things around in Syria. But it represents a very interesting way of tightening the economic noose around Assad—and perhaps, just perhaps, the Russians and the Chinese might be forced to play ball, too. They don't care if Syria is a murderous autocracy, but they do care if they risk losing their money on their investments in-country.
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/20/world/meast/yemen-saleh-threats/index.html
Saleh, in his capacity as party president of the General People's Congress (the ruling party), is trying to become a parallel ruler as previously predicted. Thankfully, President Hadi himself seems to have a mind of his own. But expect more shenanigans from Yemen.
And the Russians are on board with the new UN resolution on Syria, provided Assad isn't given an ultimatum, according to the NYT.
Why the hell is this such a big thing for Russia?
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.Syria has their only port in the Mediterreanean, is effectively Russia's local bulldog to some extent versus the US-aligned Israel, and to a lesser degree of important, the Assad regime is the #1 client for Russian military products in the Middle East (in the narrow sense of "Middle East", that is).
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I don't know how much weight I'd put on it, but "stick a thumb in the west's eye" is probably also somewhere on Putin's list of reasons to support Assad.
All your safe space are belong to TrumpVery likely. It also increases their leverage in Tehran, since Syria is about the only friend Iran has in the area (discounting Hezbollah, which is practically run by the IRGC). That, by the way, is also the primary reason the Gulf states are lining up to donate weapons to the rebels: if they can draw the IRGC/Qods Force into a long proxy war where the Iranian groups are on the wrong side of popular support, they can attrit Iran's irregular-warfare groups and indirectly hurt Iran itself.
EDIT: Evidently Russia's changing its tone a little.
Whether or not this means anything concrete is unknown.
edited 20th Mar '12 10:27:05 PM by SabresEdge
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.From the article linked in the post above his:
This post, from the previous page of this thread, is the one I was recalling when I made my post.
It was posted Monday.
EDIT: I went over several more pages and it seems that aside from that post, we haven't really talked about this here. Must've been some other place where I've been talking about it and I might have just associated that conversation with this thread because normally it would've been mentioned here, too.
edited 22nd Mar '12 3:41:57 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Thread Dump:
An open letter
from Human Rights watch to the Syrian opposition. "We are writing to express our concern about increasing evidence, as described below, of kidnappings, the use of torture, and executions by armed Syrian opposition members and strongly urge you to work to ensure that all opposition members refrain from engaging in these unlawful practices."
This
is an interesting analysis of how the Egyptian transition to democracy is going and what is likely to happen next (the author is cautiously optimistic).
Apparently the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia
has declared that all churches within that country should be destroyed. "The declaration of Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Abd al-Aziz b. Abdullah that all churches in the Arabian Peninsula should be destroyed is getting some attention. I first saw this a few days ago at Crossroads Arabia and thought little of it. Saying offensive and somewhat crazy extreme things is practically the job description for the head of that country's religious establishment, which fears the moral collapse of society if women start driving cars."
And here
is an interesting article by a prominent Islamic scholar claiming that Arabian Salafism is a tool of the West (he makes a number of good points). "The United States as well as the European countries have no problem in dealing with the type of Islamism promoted by the literalist Salafism found in some Muslim countries: these regimes might oppose democracy and pluralism, but they do not hinder the western economic and geostrategic interests in the region and internationally. They even rely on western support to survive: this useful dependency is enough for the West to justify an objective alliance — with or without democracy."
And this
is an interesting analysis of how complex the Islamic movement in Egypt has become. "However, while many are preoccupied by the "rise" of the Muslim Brothers and the ultra-conservative Salafis, "informal" Islamists are stepping into politics vigorously and freely. They are not officially affiliated with any Islamist movement. Nor are they keen to establish their own organizations. Ironically, they shunned joining any of the new Islamists parties. Moreover, whereas "formal" Islamists, for example, the MB, ad-Dawa al-Salafiyya, and ex-Jihadists, rushed to formal politics, "informal" Islamists prefer to play outside the official framework. They vividly operate in the new and expansive religious market that has flourished in Egypt since the revolution."
And finally, President Obama is apparently pressuring Yemen to keep a journalist imprisoned: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/abdulelah-haider-shaye-yemen-journalist_n_1348354.html
http://www.thenation.com/article/166757/why-president-obama-keeping-journalist-prison-yemen
edited 22nd Mar '12 2:04:17 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The U.S.-supported imprisonment of that journalist is disgusting. Obama is either misinformed, or Shaye was uncovering something that looked REALLY bad.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Well, he did basically manage to contact and personally interview people that the US is/was having a lot of trouble merely tracking down for arrest/killing (his wife is related to one prominent extreme-Islamist figure), with said interviews involving pretty much objective questions, and his journalistic criticism aimed at both sides of the War on Terror; and he exposed that an ostensible attack by Yemeni forces on an AQAP cell was actually made by US forces (evidence being US-made missiles and such left at the site of the attacks), and that only the dead bodies of dozens of women and children were at the site of the attacks, with no provable trace of any militants having even been there. So basically, the US government lost a lot of face due to his honest journalism and smart use of contacts.
edited 22nd Mar '12 5:14:42 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Why should you decide what's "worse" for the people of Syria? With people dying by the minute, you're willing to support Assad's regime because of your fear of civil war afterwards? It isn't going to get worse, especially since we don't even need boots on the ground to topple Assad. How can an interim Syrian government be worse? Look at Libya. Isolationism to this point seems to me to be nothing more than a lack of empathy. It's one thing to want the rebels to work together, but that's not a justification for supporting the current regime.
It's so easy to think you know what's best for the people of Syria from a safe little bubble. What do you think they want?
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.