Thread: Fiddling while Syria burns Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023145
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
Thou shalt not kill.

What does this mean?--Answer.

We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need [in every need and danger of life and body].

Martin Luther, Luther's Small Catechism
After over one year of rebellion and massacre should we be more proactive in the Syrian conflict? While we as individuals cannot do much other than giving to relief programs, how can we get our governments to do more? What more can they do?
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
That is one of the really difficult sort of dilemmas. As a human being, looking at what is happening, I want to explode with frustration when people in Russia care more about economic prosperity tied to the current regime than the increasingly overwhelming evidence of human suffering.

However, even if consensus was achieved and we went in it wouldn't be as simple as in out, we might inadvertantly cause a lot more suffering and death trying to intervene than not. Plus we also have the question of whether we have the military resources to commit to another 'war'.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I think nobody has a clue what to do. The idea of military intervention is fraught with difficulties, in that the fall of Assad could spark off war throughout the whole area of the Middle East.

There are so many chains of loyalty and power blocs in that area - for example, Iran supports Assad, Assad supports Hezbollah, the Saudis are trying to bring down Assad, while simultaneously helping suppress the Bahraini revolt. Lebanon has already seen street fighting as pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian factions clash. Iraq has become pro-Iranian since the war.

Another possibility is to arm the Syrian opposition, but this could have the same result.

So it could be that Syria sits on top of a powder keg. It is impossible to calculate what effects anything might have. Oil, wealth and poverty, the rage against the dictatorships, religious factionalism, nationalism, the after-effects of a failed secularism - all of this is bewilderingly complex.

[ 10. June 2012, 15:50: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
You quote Luther. Of course his sentiments were limited as he was a renowned anti semite. So maybe his care only extended a little way? Jews were perhaps fair game?

As for Syria, the best parallel IMHO is in fact Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a Baathist as is Assad and his father before him. Saddam Hussein kept a tight but ruthless grip on power - just like Assad and his clan do in Syria.

Syria is a secular and socialist government. If you topple the (clearly quite wicked) regime of Assad what happens? Another equally despotic regime may emerge after years of bloody civil war possibly?

Does the right of sovereign nations meany anything in 2012? If it does we could maybe send in (if agreed with the regime) red cross aid and medical assistance - then let them ''slug'' it out.

Surely the history of Western intervention in the Middle East and South Asia should teach us a few lessons - easy to get in - but much harder to leave.

No easy answers here. But on balance a big fat NO to intervention of a military kind (humanitarian help yes for sure).

Saul
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
Much of the Syria problem is that many (but not all)of the anti= government forces are moslem extremists: the alowites have tended to protect the minorities, including Christians, as they themselves are a minority.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Russia seems to be the key player in this . So the West could put pressure on Russia to do something about it .

But what can Russia do that the West can't ? Put a military force into Syria and increase the bloodshed ? Tell the Syrian government to stop killing their own people and let the Rebels take power ?

Humanitarian aid is all the outside world can offer , direct intervention is not going to happen . The sooner the rebels understand this the sooner they'll have to give up.
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
It all regrettably goes to show that the West have absolutely no idea how to make peace. If we devoted even a fraction of our military budgets to active peacemaking initiatives - whatever they might look like - we might now be in a situation where we had some options.

As it is, the options seem to be to sit around trying to do something through the UN: what, when, will Russia ever back down?; or military intervention which will inevitably cause thousands of civilian deaths.

No truly appealing options. Pray?
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I believe the US is helping some Gulf States to arm the Free Syrian Army. Turkey (a Sunni majority state with an Alevi minority) is right next door and has powerful Armed Forces. The Russians lease port facilities in Tartus and are a major supplier of arms to the current regime.

My feeling is that the Assad regime is, ultimately, doomed. Sadly, it looks like it will be a long and bloody guerrilla campaign. The longer it goes on the bloodier the retribution against the regime and its supposed allies.

I think, to establish peace in the world, you have to have peace within you. That is the really hard call.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
What should our governments be doing they aren't doing?

Do you mean military intervention?

What interest of the United States is served by overthrowing Bashar al-Assad?


In answer to your first question, I vote no.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Beeswax--don't assume I mean direct military intervention. I am just as frustrated with the lack of any real good options as has been expressed by the other posters. Definitely a sticky wicket. I am just asking what else can we do.

While I quote Luther I know full well his Antisemitism which was used as justification for the Holocaust. However, he was as much of a saint as a sinner. In reality, he was expressing the attitude of his times. Since then all major Lutheran bodies have repudiated his stance against the Jews. Even at the time of the Nazi domination of Europe faithful Lutherans were speaking truth to power to the point of actively seeking ways to overthrow the Hitler regime.

But that is in the past. This is now. The question remains how can we protect our Syrian neighbors from anymore violence and bloodshed than what is absolutely necessary.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...
What interest of the United States is served by overthrowing Bashar al-Assad?...
That's realpolitik for you.

The US Government "rendered" suspected Islamic militants to Syria to be tortured to gain information. That really was "sleeping with the enemy".

It's not Americans in general I'm blaming for this but the CIA and other government agencies.

Assad is to many in various governments "the devil we know best and have dealt with".

Sad really...
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The Obama administration would never send a suspected Islamic militant to Syria for torture. Instead, the suspected Islamic militant's name would be added to Obama's kill list. Take no prisoners and then you don't have to worry about how to treat POW/Enemy Combatants/Permanent Detainees or even what to call them other than dead. Obama is earning that Nobel Peace Prize.

The overthrow of Bashar al-Assad will not guarantee a better government in Damascus. The only thing that will change is who gets persecuted and who gets to do the persecuting. By all means, the US should continue the empty diplomatic gestures and issue more meaningless condemnations. Doing anything more will just come back to haunt us or somebody else.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
I don't think that the current US administration has any intention of significant intervention. They're using Russia as a scapegoat for their inactivity, but I doubt if they'll work too hard to get Russia to back off because they themselves don't want to really get involved.

I for one, am glad. As sad and heartbreaking as it is to see what happening in Syria in the present, I personally don't think much long-term good results from Western intervention in ME affairs.

As for Turkey, I doubt if they'll actually get involved militarily. The average 'guy on the street' seems pretty upset here, but I'm not sure they want to send their soldiers in to die for this cause.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Beeswax - you know it's the former US administration I refer to. The drone strikes - however justified - won't make many friends in the Muslim World, which is sad, because America has tried to be a friend there.

This is emphatically not a diatribe about America or bodgie US military interventions of the past. Gramps49 is a former USAF Chaplain and he's desperately plugging for peace. Possibly because of his experience as a Chaplain with the living and deceased casualties of war.

Syrian governments - right back to Ottoman times - have been corrupt, venal and brutal. The 1860 officially condoned massacre of Christians by Druse in Damascus is a case in point.

Syria is terribly "confessional". The leaders of the Free Syrian Army are a largely unknown quantity. Has the Muslim Brotherhood been radicalised by the 1982 massacre in Hama and recent government actions? What role will it play now and in future? Can Al-Qaeda be prevented from playing a major role in any new Syrian government? I think it can. Will Syria break up into confessional cantons? Will Syria's Christians, like Iraq's, be forced to flee?

It's hard at times sitting this one out. UN pressure achieves nothing. Very frustrating. I wouldn't plump for direct military intervention but have no problems with assisting Qatar and Saudi Arabia arming the rebels. Assad - a thoroughly evil man - is gone. Better assist limiting what he and his bloodthirsty cohorts are doing by allowing people to defend themselves.Surely they deserve some help?
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
But I understand that many Turks dispute the current border with Syria—might they see this as a chance to settle an old score?

K.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
But I understand that many Turks dispute the current border with Syria—might they see this as a chance to settle an old score?

K.
Up until the last year or so, Turkish-Syrian relations have been excellent... to the point of allowing free crossing of the border between the two without visa requirements. I've heard little talk of trying to redraw the border... but that doesn't mean you're wrong necessarily.

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Surely they deserve some help?
I agree that they deserve some help, but I think that it ought to come from Saudi Arabia or some other Arab country. The cycle I see goes something like this:

*A ME country is in turmoil
*The turmoil is blamed on prior Western intervention
*The Arab nations won't do anything about the problem themselves, presumable because it's not their fault
*The West gets involved
*The country stabilizes for 10-20 years until it's in turmoil again.

So I think that if the west is going to get involved then it needs to be to push the Arab League into getting directly involved... of course they've got us by our petrol-soaked gonads and we don't really have a practical way of pressuring them into action outside of diplomatic pleading.

YMMV
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Kissinger has it right in the Washington Post. See here ... "Syrian Intervention risks upsetting global order"

The Treaty of Westphalia confined sectarian conflict in Europe by preventing sovereign states from intervening in each other's affairs unless their own national sovereignty was compromised.

However unpalatable it might be, the Allies declared war on Germany because Hitler had invaded Poland, NOT because of violence towards German Jewry. Such humanitarian concerns were added to the mix subsequently. The UN does not as yet have enough clout to prevent massacres internal to sovereign states.

The carnage will continue for a while but there will be no civil war or toppling of Assad unless the Army defects en masse and there is a coup. That is not going to happen.

Western intervention could trigger a Third World War in the Middle East. Too many fingers are already meddling in this conflict.

Russia's plan for an International Conference is excellent and it MUST include Iran. For good or for ill Iran is a major player in the Middle East (as Persia always has been ... nothing new here). Sectarian disputes can only be settled by ALL sides and all their proxies and allies being involved. The West is just going to have to swallow that.

Moreover Israel I suspect does not want Assad to fall. From their point of view it's probably better to have a secular Alawite regime in Damascus than a Salafite theocratic one.
 
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
Part of the frustration is that I simply do not know what is being down behind the scenes. Other that of which I see on the news when the British, US and UN leaders say Assad is a naughty boy.

I understand that some of the UN members are not very helpful in being part of the solution but I have no idea what this means. What powers (for want of a better word) does the UN have?

As Christians when we make a promise to speak up for those who have no voice to defend those who are being bullied what does that mean?

I struggle equally with Christians who preach a war justification message as much as those who sit passively.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I think, irish_lord99, as I said, assisting Saudi Arabia and Qatar to give the Free Syrian Army weapons might be the best non-direct intervention to even the score and prevent further government atrocities.

The Arab League are good at long Arab-style talkfests. You need something more direct but not necessarily slated home directly to Washington, London etc.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I was away most of the weekend, but there was a very depressing interview on the BBC on Friday, not long before I left, with Senator McCain, the former Presidential Candidate, castigating the present US administration for not wading into Syria and sorting everything out like the previous one had done in Iraq.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
UK Foreign Sec William Hague has now started comparing it to Bosnia in the early 90s. I fear he may be correct...
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Polly ... my bishop is a Syrian and I belong to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch which is headquartered in Damascus ... so I know a thing or two about this.

This is a religious sectarian dispute between Sunni and Shia ... pure and simple. The rest is just smoke and mirrors. The Alawites who control Syria are a Shia sect, regarded by the Sunni as heretics. Those Sunni who have not cooperated with the regime have always born a grudge against the Assad dynasty because of the 1982 Hama action against the insurgent Muslim brotherhood (Sunni). This is just pay back time and an action replay.

Sunni orthodoxy and hegemony has never 100% prevailed in Syria because of its ancient Christian cultural heritage and the tendency of Shia Muslims in Syria to "do their own thing."
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
Aaaagh, the irresistible draw of Purgatory...

AFAIC the biggest obstacle to Western intervention in Syria is the absurdly exaggerated invective thrown at politicians connected with intervention in Iraq by precisely the same groups who are now demanding intervention in Syria. Any halfway sentient politician is going to take a quick look at Twitter, see people still shouting WAR CRIMINAL at Tony Blair and decide that sitting on their hands is the safest option.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
We stayed with Syrians over the weekend.

They have property and family in Damascus, but have not been able to visit for 18 months.

Their sadness is great but the question they have is 'Why does the world look on and do nothing?'

[Frown] [Votive]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Excuse me Boogie, did you ask if these Syrians were specifically in favour of a military invention? And why?


(I really don't have an opinion in favour or against it yet, I think that I should know much more about Syria before I do.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Excuse me Boogie, did you ask if these Syrians were specifically in favour of a military invention? And why?
Sorry, I didn't ask. They were running the B&B we stayed in, so I didn't feel we knew them well enough to ask.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Boogie: Sorry, I didn't ask. They were running the B&B we stayed in, so I didn't feel we knew them well enough to ask.
I understand. [Votive] to them and to the people in Syria.
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Polly ... my bishop is a Syrian and I belong to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch which is headquartered in Damascus ... so I know a thing or two about this.

This is a religious sectarian dispute between Sunni and Shia ... pure and simple. The rest is just smoke and mirrors. The Alawites who control Syria are a Shia sect, regarded by the Sunni as heretics. Those Sunni who have not cooperated with the regime have always born a grudge against the Assad dynasty because of the 1982 Hama action against the insurgent Muslim brotherhood (Sunni). This is just pay back time and an action replay.

Sunni orthodoxy and hegemony has never 100% prevailed in Syria because of its ancient Christian cultural heritage and the tendency of Shia Muslims in Syria to "do their own thing."
I think this is an interesting post.

I assume the Alawites are another sect within Sunni - ism? I read an article saying the Alawites are a secretive clan who's been used by the previous french colonial power to keep other Arabs in line at that time?

I suggested (in a previous point on this thread) the situation mirrors Saddam Hussein's Iraq of 2003.

If there is yet more and more civil conflict this will effect Muslims (and the much smaller number of minorities in Syria) and as Fr Gregory points out, in particular, the existence of long standing Christian communities all over Syria.

Syrian Christians may like their relations in Iraq be under major threat.

I understand Iraqi Christians have suffered greatly since Saddam Hussein's demise.

Might the same (Christian minorities being persecuted) thing happen if Assad is removed or there is a protracted period of civil war?

Saul the Apostle

[ 11. June 2012, 14:04: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Their sadness is great but the question they have is 'Why does the world look on and do nothing?'
Is a "just war" against Syria even possible? I doubt it. There are no serious prospects of success, given the sectarian background of the conflict; and the use of arms will likely produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated, given the strength of Syrian armed forces.

Frankly, the West has other problems than Syria at the moment, like trying not to collapse economically. I'm not even sure by what standards the West has to bother more about Syria than for example Somalia, Sudan and Congo. But anyhow, for now they just will have to join the long list of places with shit governance. Talk again in a couple of decades or so, when (if...) we are in fighting shape again.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
AFAIC the biggest obstacle to Western intervention in Syria is the absurdly exaggerated invective thrown at politicians connected with intervention in Iraq by precisely the same groups who are now demanding intervention in Syria. Any halfway sentient politician is going to take a quick look at Twitter, see people still shouting WAR CRIMINAL at Tony Blair and decide that sitting on their hands is the safest option.
Isn't there a difference, though, in that Blair was starting a war where none existed previously, whereas any intervention in Syria would have the purpose of stopping the war that's already broken out?

[ 11. June 2012, 14:40: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't there a difference, though, in that Blair was starting a war where none existed previously, whereas any intervention in Syria would have the purpose of stopping the war that's already broken out?
Right. We would be destroying the village in order to save it...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
...or wait until it destroys itself (as per Bosnia)?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't there a difference, though, in that Blair was starting a war where none existed previously, whereas any intervention in Syria would have the purpose of stopping the war that's already broken out?
Right. We would be destroying the village in order to save it...

--Tom Clune
Not to mention making a desert and calling it peace
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't there a difference, though, in that Blair was starting a war where none existed previously, whereas any intervention in Syria would have the purpose of stopping the war that's already broken out?
Right. We would be destroying the village in order to save it...

--Tom Clune
Hey, I'm not saying intervention would be justified. I'm just saying it wouldn't be equivalent to Iraq.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not saying intervention would be justified. I'm just saying it wouldn't be equivalent to Iraq.
What I'm saying is that the British chattering left working definition of "equivalent to Iraq" is so insanely distorted and exaggerated that any kind of intervention anywhere on the basis of anything short of a written request made by the dictator in question looks like political suicide. Never mind the presence or absence of WMD or the potential to make them - which bit of "attempted genocide against own people" was way less serious in human rights terms than what is happening in Syria today?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Saul the Apostle

The Alawites are a heretical sect of Shi'a origin, (heretical from a majority Muslim position that is ... Sunni and Shi'a ... although Iran ... for obvious reasons ... is more kindly disposed).

The Christian population of Homs (ancient Emesa) has already mostly left and decanted into Christian enclaves in Syria ... mainly the "Valley of the Christians" in the south. (I have been to both places).

My Patriarchate is determined to stay. Syria is multicultural, mutlireligious ... the militant Sunni elements of the insurgency want to destroy that under the cloak of the Arab spring and justifiable western outrage at the butchery. ("Christians to the Lebanon, Alawites to the grave" as the chant goes). Syria has an ancient and honourable Christian past and present; but we are now caught in the middle of an Islamic sectarian dispute.

We are not going to surrender our legacy lightly ... although it will now certainly come under great pressure. Until now Christians and Muslims (of all traditions) have have had excellent relations in Syria. No religious permission is required to build or repair churches (unlike Egypt) and Christians may practice their religion freely (without evangelising Muslims of course). All this is now at risk. It's pay back time for the Muslim Brotherhood. It will not end well I am afraid, (by which I mean bad will get worse ... and even worse still if the west meddles).

[ 12. June 2012, 09:12: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Father Gregory - how good to see you posting again! I've missed you during your long silence.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Believe me ... it wasn't a silence people experienced in our parish .... poor souls! [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Nothing to contribute here, other than a happy nod towards Melon and Father Gregory. Glad the strange allure of Purg has proved once again too difficult to resist.

[ 12. June 2012, 17:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Saul the Apostle

The Alawites are a heretical sect of Shi'a origin, (heretical from a majority Muslim position that is ... Sunni and Shi'a ... although Iran ... for obvious reasons ... is more kindly disposed).

The Christian population of Homs (ancient Emesa) has already mostly left and decanted into Christian enclaves in Syria ... mainly the "Valley of the Christians" in the south. (I have been to both places).

My Patriarchate is determined to stay. Syria is multicultural, mutlireligious ... the militant Sunni elements of the insurgency want to destroy that under the cloak of the Arab spring and justifiable western outrage at the butchery. ("Christians to the Lebanon, Alawites to the grave" as the chant goes). Syria has an ancient and honourable Christian past and present; but we are now caught in the middle of an Islamic sectarian dispute.

We are not going to surrender our legacy lightly ... although it will now certainly come under great pressure. Until now Christians and Muslims (of all traditions) have have had excellent relations in Syria. No religious permission is required to build or repair churches (unlike Egypt) and Christians may practice their religion freely (without evangelising Muslims of course). All this is now at risk. It's pay back time for the Muslim Brotherhood. It will not end well I am afraid, (by which I mean bad will get worse ... and even worse still if the west meddles).
Fr Gregory,

thank you for the clarification. Interesting mix of communities in that area.

Yes I agree with your last sentence in particular, the West meddling in the Middle East always seems to end badly. When will we ever learn the lessons that Sykes-Picot should have taught us?

These ancient yet still living communities must be protected. I pray, hope against hope, for these fellow Christians that bad times would not get worse for them.

Saul the Apostle
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Sunni Muslims are by far the largest proportion of the population, and, in Ottoman times, were very much the ruling elite.

Syrian Christians - the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch being the largest representor - have been there since well before the Islamic conquest and traditionally had quite a respected place in society although, as "dhimmis" (non-Muslims) did suffer discrimination and prejudice. They have been migrating from the region since the mid-Nineteenth Century. Most Christians are Eastern Christians and their cultural roots are there.

The Alawites (similar to the Alevi in Turkey) were a spin off from mainstream "Twelver" (Twelve Imam) Shi'ism which is the dominant religion in Iran. The late Ayatollah Khomeini enabled their recognition as non-heretical. They were originally a rural people, centred in the north, with little political power. The Assad dynasty changed that.

Sunnis would, from memory, be about 70% of the population; Christians and Alawites 10-13% each. The other 10%+ or - would be made up of Druse etc.

The Assad family led Ba'athist regime is vile and repressive. I think the problem is, when it falls, as it will inevitably do, how are the rights of the minorities, especially the Christians, to be preserved? A very hard call. I sympathise with Father Gregory and his Patriarch; the Melkite Patriarch and all Syrian Christians.

[Votive]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not saying intervention would be justified. I'm just saying it wouldn't be equivalent to Iraq.
What I'm saying is that the British chattering left working definition of "equivalent to Iraq" is so insanely distorted and exaggerated that any kind of intervention anywhere on the basis of anything short of a written request made by the dictator in question looks like political suicide. Never mind the presence or absence of WMD or the potential to make them - which bit of "attempted genocide against own people" was way less serious in human rights terms than what is happening in Syria today?
Well, the whole Iraq situation would have been very different if "attempted genocide against own people" had been the justification actually used. But it emphatically wasn't. It was all about the presence of WMDs, and the idea that Saddam Hussein was a bad leader of his own people wasn't used as a justification until after the WMDs had vanished in a puff of smoke.

So, in that respect, Syria is not the same as Iraq. We essentially seem to have a situation that combines somewhat Iraq-like demographics/politics with an existing conflict closer to, say, Libya.

I can't say that mix provides me with any enlightenment as to what should be done, it just makes me fairly nervous.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Addendum: Mind you, having compared Iraqi and Syrian politics, I should at least note that the Sunni/Shia roles are more or less backwards and that the Iraqi Ba'athists and the Syrian Ba'athists weren't exactly chums!
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0