Syria watch...

[Little John]

The morality of intervention in circumstances such as this are flawed and full of unintended consequences, at best, and are deeply hypocritical or hiding sinister agendas at worst.

To repeat my earlier point, all such international situations should be viewed purely on a pragmatic, amoral basis because that is often the least immoral position to take:

Does it make a difference to us, in terms of access to oil and other geopolitical considerations, who ends up in charge in Syria? If it doesn't make a difference we should stay the hell out of it. It it does make a difference, can we contain the damage to our interests by non-direct-military-interventionist means? If we can't contain the damage, can we get other players in the region to participate or even lead such an intervention by convincing them it is in their interests, as well as ours, to do so? If we can't convince others to do our dirty work for us, what would be the collateral costs to us both politically and in terms of national security of such a direct intervention by us? If the cost is exceptionally high, then it may be the least worst option to let the thing play out by itself even if that leaves us geopolitically disadvantaged because the alternative outcomes that accompany intervention could be worse.

My own view on all of the above is that whilst there may be a short to medium term strategic interest in forcing a given outcome, the long term costs of the undermining of the stability of our own societies and of a deepening of the poisonous deterioration of the relationship between the Muslim and Western secular worlds with all of the national security issues that entails are all too high.

The cost of this civil war in lost and mangled Syrian lives is unbearable to witness. That does not mean, however, we salve our own consciences by taking interventionist action and picking winners, because the consequences will likely be far worse and far more long lasting.

One of the main reasons for the seemingly endless conflicts in that part of the world is the completely ethnically unnatural land borders imposed by the Western powers over a century ago and then again later. That was all about the bloody oil as well.

[the_lyniezian]

I am going to repeat this, as it is running the serious risk of dissap[earing on this thread, and has been completely obliterated from discourse in the MSM.

A hundred people are alleged to have been killed by some kind of gas.

Every day, in Syria and elsewhere, thousands of people are dying horribly from bullets and bombs. Not least, the thousand or so people who died in Egypt just the other week, where we know for a fact they were largely unarmed and where we know for a fact precisely who the culprits were. But, our MSM has conveniently gone quiet over that and our corrupt governments are equally silent on the matter.

What’s the difference?

The hypocrisy, the bullshit, the kind of credulous nonsense talked on this very thread by intelligent, educated people who should know better, is staggering.

I don't believe a single word that our governments tells us on this matter and anyone trying to argue that, this time, we really should trust them are, frankly, fools or shills. But, even if it's all true and Assads forces killed a hundred people with gas or by any other means, what the hell do people expect? It's a ******* civil war!

I would have more respect if someone just came out and said, that the US is seeking to maintain and increase it strategic control of this region for all of the obvious reasons and that the bleaters over here would soon start complaining when their bloody lights went out and that the bottom line is that the maintenance of our system in the West is more important than any other consideration.

At least that would be telling it how it is. At least that would be honest.

I suppose one crucial difference is that the chemical weapons do the harm it would take significant sustained bombardment by conventional weapons to accomplish, and let's be honest what can happen once can happen again.

If all we were doing was (as Cameron tried to sell to Parliament yesterday) that the only response would be to neutralise the potential for chemical weapons use, fair enough. But I think we've heard far too much of this sort of bleeding-heart interventionist rhetoric concealing inevitable "mission creep" to know how likely that is to happen, and how it would stil represent an attack on a regime with many powerful backers who might not take things lying down if we did. Russia already appears to be moving warships into position.

If it is solely justified on humanitarian grounds then we have mechanisms in place to deal with that- i.e. the UN Security Council and the like. We know that isn't going to work.

The hypocrisy is clear, and if the US was really acting on moral grounds it should clearly have made serious threats of withdrawing funding to the Egyptian military if nothing else.

[the_lyniezian]

The morality of intervention in circumstances such as this are flawed and full of unintended consequences, at best, and are deeply hypocritical or hiding sinister agendas at worst.

To repeat my earlier point, all such international situations should be viewed purely on a pragmatic, amoral basis because that is often the least immoral position to take:

Does it make a difference to us, in terms of access to oil and other geopolitical considerations, who ends up in charge in Syria? If it doesn't make a difference we should stay the hell out of it. It it does make a difference, can we contain the damage to our interests by non-direct-military-interventionist means? If we can't contain the damage, can we get other players in the region to participate or even lead such an intervention by convincing them it is in their interests, as well as ours, to do so? If we can't convince others to do our dirty work for us, what would be the collateral costs to us both politically and in terms of national security of such a direct intervention by us? If the cost is exceptionally high, then it may be the least worst option to let the thing play out by itself even if that leaves us geopolitically disadvantaged because the alternative outcomes that accompany intervention could be worse.

My own view on all of the above is that whilst there may be a short to medium term strategic interest in forcing a given outcome, the long term costs of the undermining of the stability of our own societies and of a deepening of the poisonous deterioration of the relationship between the Muslim and Western secular worlds with all of the national security issues that entails are all too high.

The cost of this civil war in lost and mangled Syrian lives is unbearable to witness. That does not mean, however, we salve our own consciences by taking interventionist action and picking winners, because the consequences will likely be far worse and far more long lasting.

One of the main reasons for the seemingly endless conflicts in that part of the world is the completely ethnically unnatural land borders imposed by the Western powers over a century ago and then again later. That was all about the bloody oil as well.

Ultimately you may well be right here. It's highly unlikely that any intervention will be as limited as promised, and doing so is just staking ourselves in a position in the international strategy games that Syria is already a part of. Moreover, what you hint at in your last paragraph could well mean we've run to the end of our moral legitimacy for poking our noses in at all.

Not that I thin we should count working with the winners without a care morally legitimate either. We shouldn't have to be courting tyrannical regimes just to keep the wheels of society turning. Which ultimately means we need to be finding alternatives to oil so as not to have to rely on these regimes. This should be he real focus of society's efforts, especially of this small country which doesn't have the economic, military or resource clout of the United States.

[biffvernon]

Is the Syrian conflict a climate war? http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/

[JohnB]

This is very interesting, if true, and slightly changes things.

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-re ... ns-attack/

[woodburner]

Only slightly. The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) concluded that because they couldn't think of anyone else, it must have been the Syrian government forces wot done it.

Sort of like: "we've no idea, so we'll take a guess".

[SleeperService]

Greetings All

Catching up after a long absence and found this discussion. So FWIW how about this:

Evidence for chemical weapons is there but we have no certain idea who was responsible, so HM Govt pick the side they like as the victims.

The rebels are very similar in outlook to the extremists we're fighting in Afghanistan, the sources of war material seem to be the same.

Syria is a much more secular state than it's neighbours, in fact represents the kind of government the West are trying to install in other countries.

So Why is Call Me Dave so keen to get us involved?

Oil supplies. Possibly but if these were so vital that we'll go to war then surely alternative sources of energy would be getting serious investigation, a national home insulation scheme would be underway and things would be happening to deter people travelling miles to work each day because they want to live in the country and earn city wages.

Distraction. Rather more likely especially with the UK's stagnant recovery from 2008, migration and Human Rights issues front and centre, no clear plan for the future and vast numbers of hidden unemployed.

The British Defence Industries are looking for orders. Jackpot!! BAe are making sub-standard, over priced, irrelevant products that nobody wants to buy. Step forward HMG with cheque book at the ready. But there's a problem. With the British operations in Afgan set to end how can we justify the expense? Looks round for another conflict to get involved in. Bingo Syria looks good.

[Little John]

Greetings All

Catching up after a long absence and found this discussion. So FWIW how about this:

Evidence for chemical weapons is there but we have no certain idea who was responsible, so HM Govt pick the side they like as the victims.

The rebels are very similar in outlook to the extremists we're fighting in Afghanistan, the sources of war material seem to be the same.

Syria is a much more secular state than it's neighbours, in fact represents the kind of government the West are trying to install in other countries.

So Why is Call Me Dave so keen to get us involved?

Oil supplies. Possibly but if these were so vital that we'll go to war then surely alternative sources of energy would be getting serious investigation, a national home insulation scheme would be underway and things would be happening to deter people travelling miles to work each day because they want to live in the country and earn city wages.

Distraction. Rather more likely especially with the UK's stagnant recovery from 2008, migration and Human Rights issues front and centre, no clear plan for the future and vast numbers of hidden unemployed.

The British Defence Industries are looking for orders. Jackpot!! BAe are making sub-standard, over priced, irrelevant products that nobody wants to buy. Step forward HMG with cheque book at the ready. But there's a problem. With the British operations in Afgan set to end how can we justify the expense? Looks round for another conflict to get involved in. Bingo Syria looks good.

If the reason really is as sordid and petty as that, the bastard needs hanging from the nearest lamp-post

[SleeperService]

Greetings All

Distraction. Rather more likely especially with the UK's stagnant recovery from 2008, migration and Human Rights issues front and centre, no clear plan for the future and vast numbers of hidden unemployed.

The British Defence Industries are looking for orders. Jackpot!! BAe are making sub-standard, over priced, irrelevant products that nobody wants to buy. Step forward HMG with cheque book at the ready. But there's a problem. With the British operations in Afgan set to end how can we justify the expense? Looks round for another conflict to get involved in. Bingo Syria looks good.

If the reason really is as sordid and petty as that, the bastard needs hanging from the nearest lamp-post

These two are, I believe different views of the same reason. BAe have been getting money on the threat of job losses for a while now. Westland/Augusta are pulling the same con over (Not Very) Super Lynx.

It's about as petty and sordid as Blair getting us involved in Iraq and Afgan, to-wit his own personal benefit. They all need hanging IMHO. I'd be a lot more impressed with a politician who deployed with the forces they commit.

[Blue Peter]

I'd be a lot more impressed with a politician who deployed with the forces they commit.

I think that a general law which made politicians subject to similar constraints which they imposed on others would be very good, but probably unworkable. However, a law which required the formation of a regiment of some of the kith and kin of those which took the country to war, and which was required to see front-line service, might concentrate minds,


Peter.

[raspberry-blower]

More strong stuff, this time from Craig Murray cautioning against becoming too euphoric about last night's No vote in the Commons:

Last night’s vote in the Commons is welcome, but a blip. It owes more to political tribalism than to principle. Miliband and New Labour did not oppose military action, they merely wanted to be seen to be dictating the terms. As neither Tories nor Labour were prepared to accept the other’s terms for military action, the anti war minority could combine with the tribalists of each to make sure everything got defeated. Good but fortuitous.

The media are still in full war cry. Ashdown has never been so ashamed, apparently. He is not ashamed by extraordinary rendition and our torturing people. He is not ashamed of our responsibility for the death of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, with 2,000 people a day still meeting terrible deaths. He is ashamed that we don’t respond to the deaths of children by chemical weapons, we don’t really know at whose hands, by blasting to pieces a lot more children. Well, Paddy, you are a merciless fool who thinks a spiral of death is the answer, and I have never been more ashamed that I was for most of my adult life a member of the Liberal Democrats.

Ashdown did say bitterly that there was now no point in having such large armed forces. Hallelujah! The danger to the establishment that people might realise that spending more on weapons systems than on hospitals is a poor choice, is one reason this is not over. Much is at stake for the security state. Expect a mounting barrage of propaganda on the need for action in Syria. This is just the start.

Don't Celebrate yet

[raspberry-blower]

Greetings All

Catching up after a long absence and found this discussion. So FWIW how about this:

Evidence for chemical weapons is there but we have no certain idea who was responsible, so HM Govt pick the side they like as the victims.

The rebels are very similar in outlook to the extremists we're fighting in Afghanistan, the sources of war material seem to be the same.

Syria is a much more secular state than it's neighbours, in fact represents the kind of government the West are trying to install in other countries.

So Why is Call Me Dave so keen to get us involved?

Oil supplies. Possibly but if these were so vital that we'll go to war then surely alternative sources of energy would be getting serious investigation, a national home insulation scheme would be underway and things would be happening to deter people travelling miles to work each day because they want to live in the country and earn city wages.

Distraction. Rather more likely especially with the UK's stagnant recovery from 2008, migration and Human Rights issues front and centre, no clear plan for the future and vast numbers of hidden unemployed.

The British Defence Industries are looking for orders. Jackpot!! BAe are making sub-standard, over priced, irrelevant products that nobody wants to buy. Step forward HMG with cheque book at the ready. But there's a problem. With the British operations in Afgan set to end how can we justify the expense? Looks round for another conflict to get involved in. Bingo Syria looks good.

Actually Sleeper, the reason is actually gas - in particular a gas pipeline that runs from Iran through Iraq into Syria.

Picture Iraqi Oil Minister Abdelkarim al-Luaybi, Syrian Oil Minister Sufian Allaw, and the current Iranian caretaker Oil Minister Mohammad Aliabadi getting together in the port of Assalouyeh, southern Iran, to sign a memorandum of understanding for the construction of the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, no less.

At Asia Times Online and also elsewhere I have been arguing that this prospective Pipelinestan node is one of the fundamental reasons for the proxy war in Syria. Against the interests of Washington, for whom integrating Iran is anathema, the pipeline bypasses two crucial foreign actors in Syria - prime "rebel" weaponizer Qatar (as a gas producer) and logistical "rebel" supporter Turkey (as the self-described privileged energy crossroads between East and West).

The US$10 billion, 6,000 kilometer pipeline is set to start in Iran's South Pars gas field (the largest in the world, shared with Qatar), and run via Iraq, Syria and ultimately to Lebanon. Then it could go under the Mediterranean to Greece and beyond; be linked to the Arab gas pipeline; or both.

War against Iran, Iraq and Syria?

In short "we" (as in member states of NATO who are calling for military action*) are doing the bidding for Gulf Cooperation Council GCC (Sunni led autocratic monarchies who support a bastardized and warped version of Islam known as Wahabbi - see my post from Craig Murray) as opposed to Shia Iran.

Put into context, a Dr Strangelove style logic appears - in order to secure energy supplies, we need to destroy it

Steve is right - hanging is too good for them, though

*UK would be included in this as war mongerers Cameron and Hague had been calling for action; Parliament disagreed, thankfully.

[SleeperService]

Actually Sleeper, the reason is actually gas - in particular a gas pipeline that runs from Iran through Iraq into Syria.

Picture Iraqi Oil Minister Abdelkarim al-Luaybi, Syrian Oil Minister Sufian Allaw, and the current Iranian caretaker Oil Minister Mohammad Aliabadi getting together in the port of Assalouyeh, southern Iran, to sign a memorandum of understanding for the construction of the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, no less.

At Asia Times Online and also elsewhere I have been arguing that this prospective Pipelinestan node is one of the fundamental reasons for the proxy war in Syria. Against the interests of Washington, for whom integrating Iran is anathema, the pipeline bypasses two crucial foreign actors in Syria - prime "rebel" weaponizer Qatar (as a gas producer) and logistical "rebel" supporter Turkey (as the self-described privileged energy crossroads between East and West).

The US$10 billion, 6,000 kilometer pipeline is set to start in Iran's South Pars gas field (the largest in the world, shared with Qatar), and run via Iraq, Syria and ultimately to Lebanon. Then it could go under the Mediterranean to Greece and beyond; be linked to the Arab gas pipeline; or both.

War against Iran, Iraq and Syria?

In short "we" (as in member states of NATO who are calling for military action*) are doing the bidding for Gulf Cooperation Council GCC (Sunni led autocratic monarchies who support a bastardized and warped version of Islam known as Wahabbi - see my post from Craig Murray) as opposed to Shia Iran.

Put into context, a Dr Strangelove style logic appears - in order to secure energy supplies, we need to destroy it

Steve is right - hanging is too good for them, though

*UK would be included in this as war mongerers Cameron and Hague had been calling for action; Parliament disagreed, thankfully.

That pipeline hasn't been built yet and the budget is about as realistic as that for HS2. The figure may just about cover direct construction costs with some manipulation. Then there will be the security of it.

If built it will lead us into the same trap the French led us in 1919, huge commitment for little reason. I think I'm basically agreeing with you

Didn't a Vietnam General say 'In order to save the village from the VC it was necessary to destroy it.' Must be something in their water

[biffvernon]

More strong stuff, this time from Craig Murray
Don't Celebrate yet

An excellent piece from Craig Murray, though he doesn't talk about the origins of the Syrian conflict which I'm pretty sure have much more to do with water than anything else. See http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/

[RenewableCandy]

New Yorker weighs in...