h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, what are people's opinions about possible military intervention in Syria? Should the West stand idly by while WMD are used against civilians or should it be recognised that this is a religious war in which intervention is ill-advised?

We don't intervene in every single civil war, and intervening in yet another Middle Eastern conflict makes it look like the West has an axe to grind.

What's the point of UN Peacekeepers if not to deal with situations like this? Egypt has an army. Iran does. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait can probably rustle up a few tanks, and Turkey's a substantial local power. Why not get those local UN members to step in as a UN operation that DOESN'T look like Western Imperialism?

Oh? Because it won't save Cameron's political career? Or let Obama shift focus away from his voyeurism? Makes sense them. Best bomb those brown folk until we've all forgotten about the NSA, food banks, and the fact that our lives are broadly worse than they were ten years ago.

Bomb both sides?

sprout

Are religious wars less objectionable than other kinds? I doubt that relatives of those who die in such wars would think so. I probably misunderstood your meaning, though, so I hope you will set me straight.

The other option, which would entail getting the "West" involved, sounds rather like the idea of being the world's policemen. But then, my sensibilities were forged in the crucible of the Vietnam conflict era, when the U.S. seemed bent on overreaching.

It was not ever so, in any event. A key battle in the 1500s settled the question of whether Islamic peoples would spread across Europe, it being about a century and a half since the Byzantine Empire lost out to the Muslim Ottoman Empire centered in Turkey. After that, there was a geographic isolation imposed upon those in the Muslim world. For all intents and purpose, that isolation began to dissolve after the "West" became more and more dependent on oil, which primarily came from Muslim countries. Nowadays, the Muslim World is part of the global community, which means that disputes which the "West" would hitherto have kept its distance from now have to be assessed for possible intervention -- resuscitating the "world policemen" issue.

The idea of government seems to mean different things in different places. This allows people to pat themselves on the back for having the "right" way of governing or being governed. Richard Nixon famously said that the art of governing was something that most African nations
had not mastered and likely never would. In recent times, various political analysts have opined that the Middle East enjoys very poor governance, by and large, with the exceptions of Israel and Turkey. Need I add that there are probably very few people in the Middle East who would want to use Israel as a role model?

It's a sticky problem, with roots that go back seven or eight centuries. It's hard to have faith in majority rule when you are a minority in a country whose majority would not be at all unhappy to see you dead or at an extreme disadvantage. It's even harder to make democracy seem like a better idea when you look around at countries that actually claim to be democracies but have poor voter turnouts, regular prosecution of high government officials for corruption [Germany is only the most recent example of this; a former Chancellor is heading for trial on corruption charges].

***ASIDE ***
paulh, in this context, please do not bring up the case of the former German president being charged with corruption. (Yes, he was president, not chancellor. The German president does not weild any power, his function is to represent the country and to give inspirational speeches.) That guy is, in fact, not facing corruption charges, but with charges of "taking advantage", which is by its definition in German law a far lesser crime than corruption. Plus, the total amount of money in question is less than 800 Euros. This case just doesn't compare to the Berlusconis of this world.

*** ASIDE OVER ***

Y.

Let's cut to the chase.
A) Is there any oil in this?

B) Can anybody name two world leaders who could do with a popularity rating boost back in their respective countries by acting as world policemen?

I'm not sure about the popularity boost angle. Conservatives, despite the rhetoric, are instinctively anti-interventionist and Cameron risks alienating a lot of his core support by "doing a Blair". Similarly, Obama is in his second term and doesn't need to worry about his popularity. He's not standing for election again.

I don't know about the US, but I get a feeling that the public here have very little appetite for more wars in the middle east. I think one of Labour's focus groups managed to get that message to Milliband, hence his volte face on the issue. If anyone is playing to the gallery, it's Milliband.

The swivel-eyed-loonies seem to have taken the public pulse correctly again too

As I was typing that, the Commons voted against intervention. Looks like the Tory rebels were instrumental in frustrating the government.

Good - this is what the Commons is meant to do and it's all too rare to see politicians doing the job we expect of them.

Sorry, Yelbakk.

That suspected napalm attack they showed on the BBC last night was shocking, and presumably calculated to encourage the nation to support intervention:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The trouble is, nobody believes intervention as we've done it in the recent past can actually work. The risks are far too great. As someone said earlier, it's the action of politicians courting publicity, who won't be around in a decade or so to see this thing reach its sorry conclusion.

<>

I had an uncomfortable feeling I was being manipulated whilst I watched that.

I dunno. I think it would be good if the world had a police force, or some means of preventing maniacs from killing people.

As for Syria.... I just don't know enough to reach a firm view. If we could press a button that would harmlessly destroy chemical weapons, I'd probably argue for pressing that button. As for measuring doubt, "collateral damage", and any further intervention.... I've just got no idea.

Post-Iraq, it seems that the old doctrine of "liberal interventionism" - which had some notable successes - is pretty much dead. Clearly the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and very probably a war crime, but I think it would be a shame if it destroyed all future prospect of intervening to stop wars and bloodshed.

Granted, there may be times when it's all just too complicated. When we don't know what the reaction will be, and it's all too risky. When the Western powers are just the *wrong* people to try to police a situation. When regional powers wouldn't be much better.

But would anyone argue that we should never intervene anywhere? That we were correct not to intervene in Rwanda? That we shouldn't intervene to stop a new Hitler (Godwin, I know, I'm sorry) carrying out a new holocaust within his own borders only.

Well there's the argument that the fiasco in Somalia led to the tragedy of Rwanda. Perhaps Blair's war in Iraq doomed any British intervention for the foreseeable future.

A thought though, if we replaced "Syria" with "Spain" and imagined the same events taking place there, would intervention be easier?

>A thought though, if we replaced "Syria" with "Spain" and imagined the same events taking place there, would intervention be easier?

Yes. Because it'd be an EU matter, and there'd be pressure on powers in Europe to keep their own backyard safe. There'd be a joint European taskforce set up, and there'd be political oversight from the UN.

Of course, in the Middle East, there's naff all chance of the Turks or the Arab League doing anything like that. Let's not forget, the Turks took advantage of the war in Iraq to nip over the border and off a few Kurds, and the Arab League despots can't work together on anything other than denouncing Israel and bribing FIFA. In the corruption stakes, they're right up there with us and the Yanks.

I just can't see we have enough evidence to actually say who did the gassing.

I agree that you and I don't have enough evidence, but there's a certain head of state who thinks he has enough, and is willing to act unilaterally. I personally wish he would restrain himself.

I haven't read the latest so working on what had been mentioned up until yesterday ... and from that it appeared that the Syrian military did plan and carry out the attack as their latest attempt to seize back control of an area of Damascus that is apparently under the control of the rebels with a local population also supporting the rebels (in the sense that they are against the current Assad regime).

There is an issue as to exactly how much Assad had been involved in the decision to use chemical stockpiles ... the likely scenario was that Assad was happy that the Military chiefs continue their campaign to oust the rebels from rebel controlled areas of Damascus ... leaving the logistics and procedures to the military. One might wonder what the point of holding stockpiles of chemical weapons if it is not to be used ... especially in times when there is a possibility of the overthrow of the ruling regime.

My own thoughts: I wonder whether Assad and the Syrian Generals were "inspired" by the military actions of the Egyptians in "seizing back" control of rebel held areas of Cairo. The army was sent in about two weeks ago to "clear" areas held by the rebels (aka demonstrators?) whereupon over a thousand demonstrators were slaughtered or / and went missing. I heard sickening reports of Egyptians tanks rolling over make shift tents containing women and children. I heard reports of Egyptian military seizing control of hospitals to make disappear some of the casualties.

Now the response of the US to this action must have inspired the Syrian generals ... the US (John Kerry) sent out a statement in response to this one sided massacre for both sides to hold back in the use of armed force and that the only solution was dialogue. It made me wonder that if the Holocaust had just occurred whether John Kerry would not have asked both sides, Nazis plus Jews, to seek dialogue and to stop aggression. I think morality left the building a long time ago, however one must do what one can.

As the US have said they will act in their own best interests. Certainly the use of chemical weapons is repugnant and must be opposed. As others have mentioned the US used chemical weapons against the Iraqis (white phosphorus and napalm derivatives). However what was used in Syria was a nerve agent.

[aside]
>As others have mentioned the US used chemical weapons against the Iraqis (white
phosphorus and napalm derivatives). However what was used in Syria was a nerve agent. <

Hmm, gunpowder is a chemical. *Everything* is a chemical, what actually is the definition of a 'chemical weapon'?
Genuine question - as a chemist I am sometimes rather befuddle by what some define as a 'chemical'.
Presumably the Geneva convention and other treaties of this ilk define what a 'weapon of mass destruction' is somehow.

[/aside]

Returning to the main point I think if Iraq 2003 and WMD hadn't happened we'd be in there. The bogus evidence of weapons of mass destruction back then was a Cry Wolf moment I think? Once bitten twice shy is our parliament and good for them - this time.

Sorry for mixing all my metaphors

A military intervention is not the solution.

US, and France probably, will attack Syria, but Al Assad is backed by Russia and Iran, who have been providing weapons all this time, as have been doing Saudi Arab and Catar, the "goodies" that US support.

A military intervention will only make sure the continuation of the war, with it , some fat cats will be making money and the Syrian people dying or suffering diseases, mutilations... or leaving the country as refugees.

There was a proposal to find a solution through diplomacy, talks... but the US didn´t accept the presence of Iran. I wonder which is their criteria to “make friends” since in the side that US support there are yihadist groups .

US says that they will act according to their interests. I´ll be glad to be wrong, but their interests are just the same that have been fueling their imperialist action for many many years.

The other day I saw a doc on tv about the creation of the Israel state and other issues concerning the Middle East. It was easy to infer that colonialism didn´t end in the Middle East, that UK, France and US has a lot of responsability for the mess they left behind.

They still haven´t learnt that lesson not the recent lesson of Irak, Lybia... Or Egypt, whose army is supported by US economically, and whose criminal actions have been backed by Israel.