An Angle for Russian Intervention in Syria?

The Russian government has rejected the notion of international intervention because the conflict in Syria is a domestic matter to be handled internally.

 It is far from classified information that the two countries have been friendly since the heydays of the Soviet Union in the 1960’s and 1970’s but recent developments may make Russian intervention more likely.

First, Assad is having money issues and is looking towards his large friends in Moscow for help. The more damning scenario for Russian intervention is that Al Qaeda fighters in Syria are reported to have arrived in the country from Chechnya—where a Russian backed strongman has suppressed most attacks against the Kremlin.

Russia could use this as an entry point because the Chechen arm of Al Qaeda has been blamed for several attacks within Russia, and its’ entirely possible that the Putin government would want to take the fight to any Chechen member of Al Qaeda in an attempt to repair his own weakened domestic image.

 Of course, its also likely that Putin will say goodbye and good riddance to Chechen fighters because if they are in Syria, than they can cause Putin problems in Russia.

The Syrian Al Qaeda Dilemma: U.S. Style

Now that we covered the Al Qaeda dilemma from the Syrian rebels perspective, what does the United States say about it?

 I would have to believe that the United States is deeply concerned about the Al Qaeda presence in Syria, but what options are truly available?

Sure, you could increase weapons to the rebels, but who knows how many are going to be left by the time the resources are marshaled together? Meanwhile, there is no appetite for US troops on the ground in Syria---either in Congress or Main Street.

The best that the United States may be able to hope for is that this finally galvanizes the international community to act in some sort of concerted action.

Absent this awakening, I fear the United States may have to be bitterly content with the Al Qaeda presence in Syria because the current American political realities make it impossible to do anything meaningful.

No politician is going to send troops in an election year—and sending more weapons implies a time element that we don’t have.

The Syrian Al Qaeda Dilemma

Syrian rebels may soon be faced with an interesting choice. They are obviously outmanned and outgunned by forces loyal to Bashir Al-Assad and are struggling just to hold on in the city of Alepo.

Al Qaeda fighters from Chechnya and elsewhere have begun to infiltrate Syria and offer assistance to the rebels in the form of cash, weapons, and much needed bodies.

So far, rebel leaders have been reluctant to accept help, fearing that Al Qaeda will attempt to hijack the movement. The question is: Do you accept Al Qaeda’s’ help?

We’re dealing with a situation where rebel leaders may not be alive next week, if the shelling continues. Would you rather die with your principles intact or live perhaps being beholden to Al Qaeda?

 It’s a thorny issue, but I don’t think the Syrian rebels have the time to be playing morality chess. If Al Qaeda is offering them help, they should take it, along with anything the international community can provide. Hey! It’s far from the first time people have served two sides in war.

One has to be alive in order to have a post Assad Syria. Right now on that score, Syrian rebels need any help they can get.

The Chemical Option in Syria

The international community has been worried about the Syrian arsenal of chemical weapons in the event the regime of Bashir Al-Assad starts to quake. But are chemical weapons really the cataclysmic threat that some international media are making it out to be?

Without question, the Assad regime is a dictatorship. It’s really difficult to expect rational behavior from a dictatorship because they are not accountable to the people, excepting show elections that dictators often win with eighty-ninety percent of a rigged vote.

All the Assad regime knows is power and if Assad is not rendered stupefied byhumanity, then yes chemical weapons are a real threat.

Assad must’ve seen what went down in Libya. To think that he’d want to be taken from a hiding place and shot through the head while his corpse is driven through the streets is insane.

 Everyone knows the saying about desperate men doing desperate things. I’m thoroughly convinced that Assad will do anything he can to avoid being Gadhafi, unfortunately that includes chemical weapons.

Syria: 2012 Rwanda

Syria continues to give the international community headaches. While investigating reports of this week’s massacre, it is reported that United Nations monitors were fired at by Syrian loyalists. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Clinton was again reiterated that Assad must go, as though perhaps the strength of her breath will somehow blow him from power.

Sorry for the cynicism, but I am concerned that Syria is becoming the 2012 Rwanda. We have a dictatorial regime that is killing its’ own people combined with an international community that seems unable or willing to stop it.

Like Rwanda, Syrian forces can fire on U.N. officials because the international community is restrained from action both because Russia and China back Assad, and the questionable political will of the U.S. to enter into a military situation.

How seriously are we supposed to take United Nations efforts, if the seven Security Council Members can’t get on the same page? This constant flow of words and emphatic finger pointing is only permitting the forces loyal to Assad to kill more people.

This boys and girls, is how Rwanda happened.

Vladimir Putin’s Syria Moment

Vladimir Putin has an image throughout many circles in the West as a cold, calculating, autocratic former KGB officer, who seems determined to return Russia to its past glory that he believes was flittered away by previous leaders.

His conduct during the recent crisis in Syria has done little to disbar this image from the international image. He has continued to back Bashir-al Assad in his murderous rampage against his own people, as Putin’s own government offers the token words of condemnation required of any Western government.

 Many have blamed the decades of friendship that exist between the Russian and Syrian states.

I believe that Putin is missing a major opportunity to enhance his image both at home and abroad. Putin is known for his tough as nails, take no prisoners attitude. This guided him during the incursion into Georgia in 2008 and his rather fiery rhetoric against the United States wanting to be a dominant power.

 It would fit with his character to take this same line with the Syrian leader, yet he appears unwilling to do so. He would earn respect by showing that he’s willing to go after his friends as well as his enemies.

 By not doing this, he’s only confirmed the West’s fears that he’s nothing but a dictator dragging Russia back to the Soviet glory days.

Come on Putin, aren't you man enough to scare anyone outside of Eastern Europe?

Outrage Inc. : The International Response to Syria

The Friday before last, there was a massacre of hundreds of people, including many children in Houla.

The international community was promptly outraged. The international community excels at being outraged as though it were an Olympic sport. Yet, all they seem to muster is being outraged.

The Syrian people do not need our outrage and our words, they need our actions. Unless someone is willing to do something tangible to uproot Bashir Al Assad, then we might as well just save our voices for something we are willing to act on.

 Russia has continued to back Assad and accept this lame terrorist explanation for the massacre.

Eyewitnesses reported tank fire. No terrorist group I’ve ever studied used a tank. Tanks are weapons of states, not Al Qaeda inspired terrorists.

 Without Russia’s help, I’m afraid that we’re just going to allow this garbage to continue. We can be outraged until we’re choking on the floor, but what do such displays accomplish

? It’s not like Assad is going to wake up one morning and say “God, I’ve been a bastard for years, maybe I should become a leader that bends to the will of his people.

 I have a better shot of dating Hannah Teter.

A National Interest in Death?

I had another piece on a very interesting spat between the Philippines and China planned for today, but the situation in Syria has really captured my attention, so I will be postponing the Philippines-China story until tomorrow.

Though intervention is a multi-faceted question,Most countries base their decisions to intervene in international conflicts on whether these conflicts are in the national interests of the perspective intervening country.

 I would argue that the national interest question is actually a poor method to use when deciding whether or not to intervene in a conflict.

By not intervening on grounds of national interest, governments are saying that they have no national interest in the conflict.

Yet, these same governments also send a contradictory message that says “Our government has an interest in indirectly causing the death of thousands more people.”

 That’s no message that any government in the Western world should care to send to the international community.

I urge the international community to beware of the unintended messages they send.

Syria: When Peace Goes Dead

The international community was divided on Syria and its’ earned us a front row seat for the civil war. Last Thursday, a series of suicide bombings struck Damascus killing fifty-five people.

 Even the suicide bombing itself has divided the international community. Russia blamed the forces against Bashar al-Assad, while the U.S. blamed the Assad regime itself.

 This bombing also raised the specter of an Al Qaeda entry into the conflict because the twin car bombing during rush hour bears the hallmark of an Islamic extremist organization—per Christian Science Monitor reporting.

If the international community cannot come together and stop pointing at each other as though they’ve just spilled ketchup on a shirt, then we have effectively doomed Syrians to a trial between two tyrannies: Islamic extremism and the al Assad regime.

Absent a consensus, I have but one question to ask the people of Syria—with noted regret—which tyrannical apparatus do you choose Assad or Islamic extremism? Or does it even matter who kills you? Just a very sad commentary, all around folks.

Syria: Victim of American Conflict Fatigue

A recent poll conducted by the Program on International Policy attitudes at the University of Maryland sends an interesting message regarding the current conflict in Syria.

 On the positive side, Americans appear to be highly concerned about the conflict that has killed an estimated 8,000 Syrians. However, they appear to have no appetite to send American military forces into the conflict, preferring safe havens for civilians to be established by Turkey and The Arab League.

Results like these should be expected. This country has been at war for over a decade and I don’t think we yet understand the societal implications these two wars will have for the United States in the coming decades. 

 Americans have empathy for the human suffering of Syrians, but also see their own economy headed for uncertainty with ballooning gas and food prices and an elevated unemployment rate. Military action in Syria is unfortunately not in the cards at present.

Without the UN: What Now in Syria?

Thanks in no small part to the self interested response by Russia and China to a rather watered down U.N. Security Council on Saturday, diplomacy is running out of steam over the conflict in Syria.

A lack of U.N. action will have the likely embolden Assad which will make the bloodshed in the streets even worse. Assad is now untouchable by the international community, meaning he will step up his repression efforts in the city of Hom.

 It goes both ways though. Opposition forces knowing that the West is coming to the rescue, will become more violent in their actions as well.

Nothing looks promising right now. The U.N. has been effectively sidelined. The Arab League mission in Syria collapsed in November. Russia is expected to push for democratic reforms, but Assad is moving at a glacial pace to implement them.

 Russia is clearly unwilling to press Assad to hard out of fear he’ll break or something. The ranks of the opposition FSA are swelling, but still don’t match the logistic or manpower of the Syrian army loyal to Assad.

Hope we all enjoy bloody carnage leading off our World News broadcasts because there’s more to come.

Syria: United Nations Standoff

If Israel’s allies wonder why they are considering unilateral action against Iran, perhaps they should review the events of Saturday at the United Nations Security Council.

On Saturday, Russia and China vetoed a resolution backing the Arab League peace plan calling for Bashar Assad to step down. The vote occurred as Syrian forces loyal to Assad continued to shell the city of Homs. In the latest episode of violence, 200 people were killed and the United Nations says that 5,400 people have been killed in the Assad crackdown on civilian protests.

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0204/Russia-China-veto-UN-resolution-on-Syria

Russia is said to be against any U.N. resolution that advocates for regime change or military intervention. I’m assuming China objections are similar.

 I echo the sentiments of French ambassador Gerard Araud “ Russia and China had "made themselves complicit in a policy of repression carried out by the Assad regime." Apparently, its’ okay to terrorize your own people as long as you have big friends, gee isn’t that a great message for all of humanity.

 Russia and China should be ashamed of themselves, but probably see common bloodlines between their leadership and Assad.

May God be with the Syrian people. I am ashamed to admit that the Western powers embodied in the United Nations Security Council have let yet another beleaguered people