Syria - what is to be done?

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.

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.

As well as dear Jeremy.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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...

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.

Radio 4 news reporting that Trump consulted with his military advisors before ordering the strikes. I'm with Maw Broon and others who say it's on the too hard list. Like most people, I'm concerned that the POTUS has done such a speedy about face and seems to have acted because of his feelings. However most of us have been feeling like/or weeping, wringing our hands, signing petitions and writing to MP's etc no no avail. It just seems to get worse every day.
Presumably, diplomatic efforts have been sincere and active, with no change. The fact that the rebels aren't the good guys they may have been seen as initially is a real worry isn't it. As in Iraq and Lybia. Sorry, I'm just muttering on but it does feel both frightening and unlikely that any solution will come quickly, easily or long lasting.

I really don't know Trisher, but Assad must be stopped. The worse case scenario is that it will be Iraq all over again.

Beammeupscottie "The west will have to go in" With what objective? Toppling Assad? Will they wage war on the Russians and Isis at the same time? They will be standing in the middle, fighting all three. I wouldn't give them much chance of success. And even if they topple Assad what will they put in his place?

Somebody had to do something. The reason Assad thought he could get away with barrel bombs and now chemical weapons again was because, Obama, much as I liked him, kept shying away from taking military action and having once before threatened Assad and then not followed up when Assad ignored him.

Assad thought he could do it again and get away with it (and I think the Russians, like most of us, misjudged Trump). Providing it stays at just a response to the use of chemical weapons and does not spread further I think it will have the desired effect without escalation

I would imagine that North Korea, is seriously re-assessing their attitude to the US and how far they should push their brinkmanship.

I can't see the West going in full tilt against Russian backed Syrian forces. The whole thing is impossible. I think all Trump did was warn Assad that if he uses chemical weapons there will be some limited retaliation, but severe enough to make him think twice before doing it again.

The West will have to go in - I can't see any other way. You just feel sorry for the civilians, don't you?

I'm no Trump fan and frankly have no idea how this will pan out but I've not seen any other sensible options suggested. Does anyone have any other ideas than diplomacy (clearly pointless) or just let him get on with his Sarin attacks until everyone is dead and he wins?

Seems like its a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. There has been a singular lack of action against Assad's atrocities, just hope Trump keeps a cool head now and takes advice on how to proceed. I feel so sorry for those children and their families, heart breaking pictures.

Terrorists in Syria- evil
Assad's regime in Syria - evil

There is no straightforward good/bad, right/wrong distinction is there?

Corbyn, that great "Professor of the Bleeding Obvious" has condemned the air-strikes as provocative behaviour leading to retaliatory actions from the other side. Probably right.

Perhaps a salutary message to North Korea and its missile programme. The problem here was Obama threatening about red lines and doing nothing! Don't threaten unless you are prepared to see it through, it makes you look weak and indecisive which is exactly how Russia perceives the West, the US in particular. Huffing and puffing about Crimea, Ukraine and until now Syria. The UN can do nothing as Russia and China always use their veto unless it suits them otherwise, making the UN helpless in the face of of appalling aggression. You simply cannot stand by wringing your hands and watch while innocent people are killed in such an appalling way, it just can't be done, someone has to make a stand and tell these vile people that this method of warfare will not, cannot be tolerated! Even in WW1 mustard gas, the results of which although only mild, I witnessed first hand, was viewed with horror on all sides which led to its being banned.

Balance and Trump are not two words with which one associates really. Once again others are running the decision making, when really the POTUS should be the one in charge as seen during Obamas term. The worry is whether the hawks can be controlled in the near future, as this sorry state of affairs unfolds.