Syria - what is to be done?

The situation is so complicated in Syria with Assad supported by Russia, ISIS, many rebel groups some supported by the West in the hope of overthrowing Assad that it is difficult to know who or what to support.
However, what Assad has done is indefensible. What ISIS is doing is indefensible. If we support the rebels there are so many factions that could disagree that it would be impossible to actively support one group or another.

I am muttering on too as I have no idea what the solution is. Many of the people in Idlib are rebels opposing Assad but they have also fled from ISIS.
It is just far too complicated, I believe, for the West to start intervening, horrific though some of this may be.
All we can do is support those who have escaped, in fact some charities were going into Idlib with aid as it is not that far from Turkey but I don't know what will happen now if Assad carries on bombarding them with whatever weapons he has.

I do not believe that the west should interfere - I know that what is going on is unspeakable and we all want it to stop, but what can we do that will have the desired result? It is so complex and partly culturally-determined - we do not really understand it and every action we might take has the potential to make things worse.

So often the west has reacted and then not had a clue how to follow it up in the long term.

The only thing that we can do positively is to support the medical agencies who are providing help and to nurture the refugees. We could of course stop selling arms, but dream on...

I agree with what fitzy said—that we have to give a clear signal that crossing certain "red lines" will not be tolerated. I remember my father talking to us (back in the seventies) about the treaty to ban chemical weapons after WW1 and how, if anyone broke the agreement, there must be retaliation to show that it wouldn't be tolerated. It's not so much about "getting involved" as assertively saying that some things, even in war, are not allowed because they are simply too gross. The use of chemical weapons against civilians is one such.

I do agree with that thatbags and I think that Trump has shown that the use of such weapons will not be tolerated.

However, unless Assad continues down that line, I think further intervention would be a mistake.

Everyone should stop selling weapons to any country in the Middle East.
Don't say if we don't someone else will. If we want to come to some agreement about Syria, that is the easiest and quickest part of the solution.

I feel we don't get told the truth and it seems odd if Asaad was winning the war in Syria he would then use chemical weapons. It was only a few weeks ago there were US air strikes in Mosul killing 230 civilians, mainly women and children. I can't see that the US can kill 230 civilians in Iraq then launch missiles in Syria in retaliation for chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are horrific but so are air strikes.

If we haven't forgotten Suddam Hussein was supposed to be hiding WMD, look how that turned out.

Trump is taking us closer to WW3 and world leaders are applauding him. Russia has warned Trump this military action has brought them close to war.

Faye there isn't one comment you made that I could really disagree with, but it's what you didn't say that's the problem. The clear inference to draw is that you feel we should all leave Assad to it and let him gas all his opponents until there are none left. The next step will be the general acceptance of the use of these weapons in conflicts around the world. Russia will of course complain, but they have not gone into Syria to start WW3 any more than the US. The hope is that they will now sit heavily on Assad and stop him from further chemical attacks; and that the thought of having 60 bombs dropped on him every time he does it will have an equally sobering effect on his plans.

At last have the answer to this problem, and we have Jeremy Corbyn to thank for putting us straight. Apparently what is required is an "urgent independent UN investigation". Presumably that would be followed by a very stiff letter from the Secretary General to Assad, maybe copying in Putin.

Well said again, fitzy.

It's all very well being anti-involvement in regimes like Assad's because war is horrible, but people complain just as much, and rightly so I think, when nothing is done to help innocent victims of evil state leaders. Trump's "message", which some people think Obama should have sent last time Assad used chemical weapons against citizens of his own country, is this: "There is an international law about using poison gas as a weapon. Abide by it."

No point having international laws (or any kind of laws, actually) if you do bugger all when they are broken by criminals.

BTW, those who think Trump's response was beyond the pale, Nigel Farage, Arron Banks and Paul Nuttall agree with you.

As well as dear Jeremy.

I don't think there exists a non-messy way to deal with evil. Wishing there were is pie in the sky.

One can hate war and still think that there are times when you have to hit back at absolute wrongdoing.

It is the long term that concerns me - whenever we get involved it seems that we have no idea what to do next, or what the implications might be. I do not think that Assad will hesitate to use whatever weapons he fancies in spite of the US action.

War is indeed messy; but setting the US on a collision course with Russia could be even messier. Putin is not one to be thwarted. He is the playground bully.

Hitler wasn't "one to be thwarted" either

Indeed - and what a debacle that all was. We certainly do not want to do anything that heads us off in that direction once more.

The complexity of the situation is what concerns me - by supporting the rebels in Syria with the US action against Assad, we are inadvertently supporting the very terrorists that we are fighting daily in the west and who want Egypt to be a fundamentalist Islamic state.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/07/us-russia-relations-syria-military-strikes-putin-trump

Not much damage done, apparently, apart from to trump's reputation.
Not saying what his next step is, but he has bigger and stronger toys to play with than Hitler had.

Being a member of CAAT, I expect Jeremy to agree with me on this.

"BAE does not believe it has a moral obligation to consider its customers' actions. When questioned at the company's 2016 AGM by activists concerned about the uses to which BAE's weaponry is put, Roger Carr, the company's chairman, said: "We are not here to judge the way that other governments work, we are here to do a job under the rules and regulations we are given." "

Maybe they should be given different rules and regulations.

Lucky girl, are you suggesting that Hitler should have been left to get on with his plans for world domination? I apologise if this sounds sarcastic, it isn't meant to be, it's a genuine question based on your comment about WW2 "what a debacle all that was. We don't want to do anything that heads us off in that direction once more".

One of the reasons I ask, is I remember in my mid teens challenging my father about war of any kind (I was protesting agains the war in Vietnam) I said everything can and should be resolved by negotiation. Dad acknowledged my feelings and responded calmly "there would have been no negotiating with Hitler".

Lucky girl this isn't about supporting Syrian rebels it's about trying to respond in some sort of measured way to the illegal and appalling use of chemical weapons. If Assad doesn't use them again I would think that will be the end of US involvement. Maybe Assad will carry in regardless, and maybe Putin will let him do so, but maybe he will think again. But to just do nothing would be to accept that the international ban on the use of these weapons is just so much waste paper. Maybe it is - we'll see.

I had a similar conversation with my father in my teens when I was totally anti-war too, iam. I got a similar response. there are some things that, once we know about them, cannot be allowed to carry on without action. What's that quote about the best way for evil to thrive is by good people doing nothing about it?

We are doing more than we think we are.

www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers_and_reports/remote_control_project_report_all_quiet_isis_front_british_

About the secretive use of drones in the middle east.

Always have done dj

It is fascinating to listen to the far right who supported Trump because of his Nationalist agenda. They are finally learning what we already knew that the man is utterly unpredictable and cannot be trusted day to day.

I am not sure what we should have done about Hitler. I think about the millions gassed and the effects of the bombs on Hiroshima etc. and wonder whether we achieved much by going for all-out war. That is apart from all the people, both German and on the allied side, who were bombed out of their homes and killed in their beds.

Might we not have better used our intelligence services to find a way of targeting Hitler himself? To have put all our eggs in that basket as the best way of destroying the threat? If all the massive effort that went into the war had been focused on this one aim I am sure it could have been successful. What would have happened next, who knows? Clearly it was not possible to negotiate with him; but I am willing to bet there were those in his entourage who would have been amenable to cooperating in wiping him out.

Equating this situation to WW2 does not really help us - the outcome of all-out war this time around would be very very different; and far far more dangerous.

As to Syria, unfortunately we will give hope to the rebels by actions such as Trump's. That is not the aim; but it is the result. If the rebels have got any sense they will now be trying to find ways to engineer further chemical attacks, however small, so that they can get Trump to do their dirty work for them.

It is very complex, there are wheels within wheels, and just dropping in from above is a huge sledgehammer reaction.

I in no way condone the chemical attacks - who in their right mind would? - but we really do have to tread carefully and I have no faith that Trump has the remotest idea about such a concept.

FitzyI wasn't posting about letting Asaad get away with unleashing chemical weapons, I was saying are we really sure it was him. The Americans got it wrong before and they should learn from their history. They are very gung-ho and don't think of the outcomes of their actions.

Luckygirl, I agree with your post entirely.