(no subject)
There are over 1.6 million Syrian refugees to date. 90,000 people have died. Every Syrian who has the means to do so is leaving the country in a mass exodus.
How did this start? The success of the arab spring in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya inspired the people of Syria to protest their authoritarian government, led by Assad. Assad saw the writing on the wall and decided that rather than being booted out from office as his fellow dictators were, he'd rather use violence to crack down on protesters (It's a matter of pride and preserving the status quo for him). Lots of protesters were killed. The protesters reacted in kind by using violence. This escalation of violence spiralled out of control into a major civil war. The government, feeling an existential crisis was imminent, started to use the military against its own citizens (which is the gravest of sins).
So, now we find ourselves two years into a civil war with no end in sight. Assad the butcher is not going to willingly step down. The rebels will not stop fighting until they're all dead. Even if Assads forces manage to retake the whole country, there won't be peace -- The situation will devolve into a guerilla style war waged by insurgents. You'll have car bombs, roadside bombs, suicide bombers, infiltrators within the ranks who go on suicidal shooting sprees, etc. Thousands more will die, hundreds of thousands more will find a way to leave the country, and the country will devolve into a failed state, economically, politically, and socially. For Assad, the price of victory is at any cost, but the fruits of victory will be a desolated nation. He'll end up being the ruler of ghost towns.
This is really unfortunate for the people of Syria. If Assad was a true leader, he would take a cue from the authoritarian leaders of Tunisia and Egypt and step down peacefully and with at least a shred of honor -- Doing so would cause the fewest number of people to die and would effectively put an end to the insurgency. Unfortunately, at this moment Assad believes he's in a position where he's on the precipice of victory -- just a little bit more of a push and he's done. Nothing could be further from the truth. He'd just drive the insurgency underground and have a much more difficult time fighting against an unconventionally fought war. The 1.6 million refugees would never come back home, the war would be prolonged by a decade, and the casualty count we see today will have doubled. I can't tell anyone what to do, but it's just frustrating to me to see what the best course of action is and to see it not being pursued.
And of course, the United States and Russia want to enter the fray and interfere with Syria's internal civil war. Neither country has the moral authority, national security interest, or right to interfere. Yet, Russia has sent S-300 surface to air missiles to the syrian government, the US is exploring the option of arming the anti-government forces, and Isreal has performed an air strike on syrian soil. The extent of international involvement should go no further than moral support of one side or another and condemnation of crimes against humanity by anyone. If anyone is going to intervene, it should be the UN and only in the role of enforcing the laws of armed conflict.
How did this start? The success of the arab spring in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya inspired the people of Syria to protest their authoritarian government, led by Assad. Assad saw the writing on the wall and decided that rather than being booted out from office as his fellow dictators were, he'd rather use violence to crack down on protesters (It's a matter of pride and preserving the status quo for him). Lots of protesters were killed. The protesters reacted in kind by using violence. This escalation of violence spiralled out of control into a major civil war. The government, feeling an existential crisis was imminent, started to use the military against its own citizens (which is the gravest of sins).
So, now we find ourselves two years into a civil war with no end in sight. Assad the butcher is not going to willingly step down. The rebels will not stop fighting until they're all dead. Even if Assads forces manage to retake the whole country, there won't be peace -- The situation will devolve into a guerilla style war waged by insurgents. You'll have car bombs, roadside bombs, suicide bombers, infiltrators within the ranks who go on suicidal shooting sprees, etc. Thousands more will die, hundreds of thousands more will find a way to leave the country, and the country will devolve into a failed state, economically, politically, and socially. For Assad, the price of victory is at any cost, but the fruits of victory will be a desolated nation. He'll end up being the ruler of ghost towns.
This is really unfortunate for the people of Syria. If Assad was a true leader, he would take a cue from the authoritarian leaders of Tunisia and Egypt and step down peacefully and with at least a shred of honor -- Doing so would cause the fewest number of people to die and would effectively put an end to the insurgency. Unfortunately, at this moment Assad believes he's in a position where he's on the precipice of victory -- just a little bit more of a push and he's done. Nothing could be further from the truth. He'd just drive the insurgency underground and have a much more difficult time fighting against an unconventionally fought war. The 1.6 million refugees would never come back home, the war would be prolonged by a decade, and the casualty count we see today will have doubled. I can't tell anyone what to do, but it's just frustrating to me to see what the best course of action is and to see it not being pursued.
And of course, the United States and Russia want to enter the fray and interfere with Syria's internal civil war. Neither country has the moral authority, national security interest, or right to interfere. Yet, Russia has sent S-300 surface to air missiles to the syrian government, the US is exploring the option of arming the anti-government forces, and Isreal has performed an air strike on syrian soil. The extent of international involvement should go no further than moral support of one side or another and condemnation of crimes against humanity by anyone. If anyone is going to intervene, it should be the UN and only in the role of enforcing the laws of armed conflict.