Five commentators discuss the merits of five ways in which the outside world could respond to Syria's crisis
Abdel Bari Atwan, Michael Weiss, Seumas Milne, Shashank Joshi and Mehdi Hasan
guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 February 2012
"1. Full-scale military intervention?
Abdel Bari Atwan I am opposed to military intervention by the west. Syria is not Libya, the army is well-armed and equipped with sophisticated weaponry. We would witness catastrophic civilian casualties. We have already seen the disasters caused by such intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the dangers of an internationalisation of the conflict are too great, with Russia, Iran and possibly China standing with Syria and Hezbollah against Nato and Israel. Such action would need a UN resolution which is clearly not forthcoming given Russia and China vetoed the last attempt to condemn Assad.....
Seumas Milne A direct invasion of Syria to topple the regime would be another disaster on the Iraq or Afghanistan model, lead to a catastrophic loss of life, trigger a long-running guerrilla war, draw in armed groups from neighbouring states and Iran against another western military occupation of an Arab, Muslim state. Fortunately, there is currently no significant support for such a course.....
2. Safe zones and humanitarian corridor?
Abdel Bari Atwan These would need to be policed either by air or troops on the ground. Syria would interpret this as a declaration of war and would certainly attack. Assad would not want to provide shelter for defectors and opposition leaders either. Again, this risks escalation.....
Seumas Milne This is effectively the Libyan option, which would entail heavy Nato air bombardment of Syrian forces and defences and deployment of special forces, but without a UN fig leaf. It would mean direct involvement of the western military in another Arab civil war in a much more toxic sectarian and regional context, dramatically increase the death toll and risk morphing into full-scale intervention.....
3. Train and equip the Free Syrian Army?
Abdel Bari Atwan This would take time and a host country for training camps would have to be found. No country has volunteered, almost certainly because they fear Syrian reprisals. In addition there are two opposition armies, the FSA and the Revolutionary Army. The opposing forces then, are fragmented and weak....
Seumas Milne Gulf autocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have already begun to do this and there are also reports of covert western support. But funnelling weapons to the armed wing of a fractured opposition will only escalate the conflict and killing without any prospect of tipping the military balance against the Syrian army, leading to pressure for more far-reaching intervention.....
4. A 'Friends of Syrian people' package?
Abdel Bari Atwan This succeeded in Libya, where the regime was widely reviled and there was the added incentive of oil. Assad still has a lot of supporters – the Alawites and the Syrian Shia back him. In the long run this option would probably end in military intervention and lead to full-scale war....
Seumas Milne The US, Britain and others are now backing this option, which will mean opposition groups coming under greater supervision by the west, undermining their national credibility and feeding the sense of western involvement in the crisis as part of a proxy war with Iran. War crimes indictments would only make regime leaders less likely to agree to a political transition.....
5. Mediated talks between Damascus and the opposition?
Blah, blah, blah...."
Abdel Bari Atwan, Michael Weiss, Seumas Milne, Shashank Joshi and Mehdi Hasan
guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 February 2012
"1. Full-scale military intervention?
Abdel Bari Atwan I am opposed to military intervention by the west. Syria is not Libya, the army is well-armed and equipped with sophisticated weaponry. We would witness catastrophic civilian casualties. We have already seen the disasters caused by such intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the dangers of an internationalisation of the conflict are too great, with Russia, Iran and possibly China standing with Syria and Hezbollah against Nato and Israel. Such action would need a UN resolution which is clearly not forthcoming given Russia and China vetoed the last attempt to condemn Assad.....
Seumas Milne A direct invasion of Syria to topple the regime would be another disaster on the Iraq or Afghanistan model, lead to a catastrophic loss of life, trigger a long-running guerrilla war, draw in armed groups from neighbouring states and Iran against another western military occupation of an Arab, Muslim state. Fortunately, there is currently no significant support for such a course.....
2. Safe zones and humanitarian corridor?
Abdel Bari Atwan These would need to be policed either by air or troops on the ground. Syria would interpret this as a declaration of war and would certainly attack. Assad would not want to provide shelter for defectors and opposition leaders either. Again, this risks escalation.....
Seumas Milne This is effectively the Libyan option, which would entail heavy Nato air bombardment of Syrian forces and defences and deployment of special forces, but without a UN fig leaf. It would mean direct involvement of the western military in another Arab civil war in a much more toxic sectarian and regional context, dramatically increase the death toll and risk morphing into full-scale intervention.....
3. Train and equip the Free Syrian Army?
Abdel Bari Atwan This would take time and a host country for training camps would have to be found. No country has volunteered, almost certainly because they fear Syrian reprisals. In addition there are two opposition armies, the FSA and the Revolutionary Army. The opposing forces then, are fragmented and weak....
Seumas Milne Gulf autocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have already begun to do this and there are also reports of covert western support. But funnelling weapons to the armed wing of a fractured opposition will only escalate the conflict and killing without any prospect of tipping the military balance against the Syrian army, leading to pressure for more far-reaching intervention.....
4. A 'Friends of Syrian people' package?
Abdel Bari Atwan This succeeded in Libya, where the regime was widely reviled and there was the added incentive of oil. Assad still has a lot of supporters – the Alawites and the Syrian Shia back him. In the long run this option would probably end in military intervention and lead to full-scale war....
Seumas Milne The US, Britain and others are now backing this option, which will mean opposition groups coming under greater supervision by the west, undermining their national credibility and feeding the sense of western involvement in the crisis as part of a proxy war with Iran. War crimes indictments would only make regime leaders less likely to agree to a political transition.....
5. Mediated talks between Damascus and the opposition?
Blah, blah, blah...."
No comments:
Post a Comment