Syria: Obama giving up on diplomacy, sees bitter fighting as the way forward

cyberhog

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has for now abandoned efforts for a diplomatic settlement to the conflict in Syria and instead it is increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down the government of President Bashar Assad, US officials say.

...

US officials say they are seeking to build on and fuel the momentum of the rebels’ recent battlefield successes.

“You’ll notice in the last couple of months, the opposition has been strengthened,’’ a senior Obama administration official said Friday. ‘‘Now we’re ready to accelerate that.’’ The official said that the hope was that support for the Syrian opposition from the United States, Arab governments, and Turkey would tip the balance in the conflict.

http://bostonglobe.com/news/world/2012/07/21/moves-away-from-diplomacy-way-end-syria-crisis/NcEpt9SmvuEEZ45fRwRSAL/story.html


It's amazing how the US can accuse Russia and China of being on the wrong side of the Syrian people when the consequence of gving up on diplomacy to strengthen the insurgency will be a further descent into bloodshed and even greater misery for the Syrians caught in the middle. The sheer brass neck of the Obama administration is unbelievable, they are probably the most astounding hypocrites the world has ever known.

But it's not only Russia and China that the US looks down on with disdain. The head of the UN mission said that intensifying violence in Syria puts UN observers at significant risk.The fact that the US wants to help groups that are partly responsible for the violence shows that Obama's contempt for the safety of Syrians also extends to UN observers.

Mood also said:

“It pains me to say, but we are not on the track for peace in Syria, and the escalations we have witnessed in Damascus over the past few days is a testimony to that,... I call on the parties to end the bloodshed and violence in all its forms, and recommit to a peaceful solution to this conflict”

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/19/227230.html

The UN's human rights commissioner urged countries not to support the insurgency:

"I think that countries should be focusing their energy on achieving a peaceful resolution here, and to ensure that the root causes are addressed ... and supplying arms to a few individuals is not going to help that situation .... As I see it, it's not the role of outsiders to arm one group or the other."

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2012/03/201232144352254346.html


And Kofi Annan has repeatedly warned against further militarisation of the crisis:

"I believe further militarisation will make the situation worse," Annan said after talks with Arab League chief Nabil al-Arabi."I hope that no one is very seriously thinking of using force in this situation," he said, adding that diplomatic efforts should be kept up.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/afp/syria-activists-fear-new-assault-on-annan-visit-eve/503587

But no matter how much the UN calls for a peaceful solution or the pro-democracy activists in Syria call for peaceful resistance, the US led coalition of countries who claim to be the most ardent defenders of the Syrian people will carry on trying to forcibly bring down the government and dragging the country deeper and deeper into crisis.

C14N

From everything I heard about it, it really sounded like the attempts at solving the problem peacefully were doing nothing at all. Assad wasn't giving in at all and the rebels weren't going to stop fighting until Assad was gone.

But maybe I'm ignorant, I admit I haven't been following the situation that closely.

poeticseraphim

C14N wrote: »

From everything I heard about it, it really sounded like the attempts at solving the problem peacefully were doing nothing at all. Assad wasn't giving in at all and the rebels weren't going to stop fighting until Assad was gone.

But maybe I'm ignorant, I admit I haven't been following the situation that closely.

There is no common ground .......at all .....for both sides it is a fight to the death....


Assad's forces have supressed the people for years using child sexual abuse rape and torture against his own people.

It is a disgusting regime.

However who knows whether any of the insurgents are any better.

But seriously the US and other countries have propped up Assad in a tyrannical regime for years now.

China and Russia rule in less brutal regimes but they are still undemocratic so there don't want to be accused of and caught out on their own injustices.

The OP has little grasp of the situation.....the Obama administration is actually viewed as irrelevant, benign but banal.

It is part of a wider Arab Spring movement with musliams accross the middle east campaigning for human rights and rising up.


It's true there is a huge danger that you don't know who you are supporting with insurgants...but Assad has to go he is a monster.

And any militarisation is going to make the whoe area instable.

I would suspect the west is largely ignorant and ill informed.

The UN has not got a clue...and frankly they are useless....

They all supported Assad for years with full knowledge of that he was doing...

He is mass murdering women and children. It's disgusting.

Who knows whether the insurgents can be stabilized ......but it's a fight to the death as far as both sides are concerned.

The trick is to knw when there is common ground and when there is not and when stability can be reached and when it cannot.

Obama has proved himself totallt incompetent in any foreign affairs and largely invisable.. the UN is almost as bad.

cyberhog

If Western nations and their gulf allies put pressure on the rebels to stop fighting, Russia would apply equal pressure on the regime. But all western drafted UN resolutions only put pressure on one side - the Syrian government. That sort of imbalance provides a disincentive for rebels to cease hostilities and embark on meaningful negotiatians. It's bad enough that the Obama administration has gone soft on the rebels at the UN, but saying they will support an increasingly violent insurgency goes beyond the pale. The Obama administration is spitting in the face of the Annan peace plan.

C14N

cyberhog wrote: »

If Western nations and their gulf allies put pressure on the rebels to stop fighting, Russia would apply equal pressure on the regime. But all western drafted UN resolutions only put pressure on one side - the Syrian government. That sort of imbalance provides a disincentive for rebels to cease hostilities and embark on meaningful negotiatians. It's bad enough that the Obama administration has gone soft on the rebels at the UN, but saying they will support an increasingly violent insurgency goes beyond the pale. The Obama administration is spitting in the face of the Annan peace plan.

So do you think it would be possible (or even preferable) for things to go back to how they were before?

How do you put pressure or go soft on insurgents? They aren't a legitimate group like the government, you can't threaten them with money.

cyberhog

C14N wrote: »

So do you think it would be possible (or even preferable) for things to go back to how they were before?

There's no going back now. I think a political transition is inevitable but it shouldn't be imposed by outside powers. Syria's fate should be determined only by the Syrian people.

C14N wrote: »

How do you put pressure or go soft on insurgents? They aren't a legitimate group like the government, you can't threaten them with money.

In a recent interview with the Guardian, Kofi Annan pointed out that both the US and Russia have influence.

"Russia does have influence and can encourage the Syrian government to implement fully the six-point plan and security council resolutions," he said. "But this task cannot be left to the Russians alone. I expect Iran to play a role. Those governments – the US and the Friends of Syria – that have influence with the opposition should also play a role. If they continue with this destructive competition everyone will lose.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/06/kofi-annan-syria-destructive-competition?CMP=twt_gu

Let's be honest the US could put pressure on the opposition to behave more reasonably if they chose to do so. But they won't, because that doesn't fit with the game plan of forcibly removing Assad from power.


Of course Russia is well aware of what the US is doing.

“Instead of calming the opposition down, some of our partners [in the UN Security Council] are inciting it to go on,” Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0719/1224320379274.html

It seems like US administrations are not very good at hiding their true colours or maybe they get a perverse kick out of flaunting their devious behaviour for the entire world to see because they know they'll get away with it anyway.

nagilum2

For once I agree with China and Russia. It's best if there is no intervention in Syria.

We should have no interest in helping to lay the groundwork for another Islamic Theocracy.

Jonny7

nagilum2 wrote: »

For once I agree with China and Russia. It's best if there is no intervention in Syria.

Yeah but there is no plan for intervention in Syria, the draft resolutions are just a basic form of common sense international response and cooperation

C14N

nagilum2 wrote: »

We should have no interest in helping to lay the groundwork for another Islamic Theocracy.

Is the current setup not an Islamic Theocracy?

loldog

cyberhog wrote: »

If Western nations and their gulf allies put pressure on the rebels to stop fighting, Russia would apply equal pressure on the regime. But all western drafted UN resolutions only put pressure on one side - the Syrian government.

FALSE! Why you spreading this kind of disinfo?

All draft resolutions have demanded the opposition to cease fire and negotiate.

One example:

3. Condemns all violence, irrespective of where it comes from, and in this regard demands that all parties in Syria, including armed groups, immediately stop all violence or reprisals, including attacks against state institutions, in accordance with the League of Arab States' initiative;

This is what happens when people get their news from Putin's propaganda machine Russia Today.

cyberhog

loldog wrote: »

FALSE! Why you spreading this kind of disinfo?

That is a horribly ignorant accusation. If you read the 3 draft resolutions vetoed by Russia and China you will see in each one the West strongly condemned the Syrian authorities and made numerous demands of the Govt but chose not to single out the Free Syrian Army in the same way. The fact is, the resolutions were extremely unbalanced as the West clearly viewed any attempt to condemn both sides equally as "unacceptable"

In October, Russia and China vetoed a western European draft resolution that threatened sanctions. Russia has circulated its own draft twice, but western nations said it made an unacceptable attempt to assign blame equally to the government and the opposition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/16/syria-russia

It is also clear from reading the resolutions that the West sought to put pressure on the Syrian Govt by threatening it with sanctions, but there was nothing in the text that would pressure the Free Syrian Army to cease hostilities.

The West also claimed in the resolutions to be gravely concerned about weapons being transfered into Syria and yet that is exactly what Obama's Gulf allies are doing.

Expressing grave concern at the continued transfer of weapons into Syria which fuels the violence and calling on member states to take necessary steps to prevent such flow of arms'

The fact that Obama hasn't called on Saudi Arabia and Qatar to stop fueling the violence sends a clear signal that the US does not want to prevent the increasingly violent operations of Free Syrian Army.

loldog wrote: »

This is what happens when people get their news from Putin's propaganda machine Russia Today.

FYI taunting or attempting to belittle an opponent is not proper decorum for a debate. Please stop with the ad hominem attacks.

old_aussie

Just let syria fight it out to the death between themselves.

wasper

old_aussie wrote: »

Just let syria fight it out to the death between themselves.

Thats just about right. No government whether dictatorial or democratic is going to stand a side & let armed resurrection cause havoc. Outsiders keep the flames going. Countries like the Democratic Saudi Arabia & Qatar are arming the rebels & worsening the problem. Only 2 days ago there were public protests in eastern Saudi & some of the protesters were shot dead. I didnt hear any western democracy cry foul. In Tajikstan last week 42 people died on both sides when rebels clashed with troops.
Let them sort out the problem by themselves.

C14N

wasper wrote: »

Let them sort out the problem by themselves.

I don't agree with this. If there are gross human rights violations going on elsewhere in the world due to military dictatorships, it is the responsibility of the international community to put an end to them. If this was going on close to home (let's pick up Syria and drop it in the middle of France) you can be sure it would be stopped. The citizens of Syria are people too.

Try to imagine yourself living in a country like that and being told by massively wealthy and advanced western countries that the only way to put an end to it is to try to go to war with a far superior government and probably die in the process and even then you will most likely achieve nothing and the dictatorship will continue.

The odds are generally stacked against rebels who are generally fewer and more poorly armed. I'm not saying military action is always the right thing to do but something has to be done or there is no forseeable end.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

cyberhog

C14N wrote: »

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

It can also be said that evil can triumph when "good men" behave stupidly. For instance, intervening in situation when the people on the ground have no desire for outsiders to get involved.

MS. NULAND: We are listening to the voices of the Syrian opposition. We are also listening for other voices inside Syria. The kind of groundswell call for external support that we’ve seen elsewhere is not there here.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/07/195580.htm

Alex Thomson asking the question: So what do Syrians want?

Hard to tell. But for sure this is not Egypt – there are no Tahrir Squares or vast protests against the regime.

There is no discernible sign in any of the big cities – Homs, Aleppo and Damascus for example,that the people even wish to rise up against the regime.

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/syria/2469

l'd say Syrians are not supporting the insurgency because they know from Iraq the chaos that ensues when a dictator is forced out is far worse than what they are going through right now.

cyberhog

Well here's an interesting twist. One of the leading voices in the West's propaganda war against Syria has seemingly had a change of heart and is now urging Obama not to abandon diplomacy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/27/syria-destruction-dearth-of-diplomacy

cyberhog

The Obama administration has a message for Assad: Bow to our demands or your family will be in grave danger.

Panetta said. "I would say if you want to be able to protect yourself and your family, you better get the hell out now."

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/panetta-says-when-not-if-al-assad-falls-syrian-military-should-remain-intact/