Branko2166 said:
The best thing for the west is to stay out of Syria. Unfortunately they seem intent on trying to topple the Syrian government. What everyone needs to realise is that the picture being painted in the mainstream western media is fairly biased.
Syria's sin is that it is one of the links of opposition to Israel. Syria is very strategic because it is the bridge that connects Iran and Lebanon. The United states tried a couple of years back to convince Syria to cut its ties with Iran but Syria refused on the grounds that it wasn't in its national interest. For this reason there is a serious effort to arm and support an insurgency by the west as well as the gulf states which are desperate to reduce Iran's influence in the Middle East.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough that any foreign intervention will lead to a massive region wide war. Syria has a mutual defense pact with Iran and they will not sit idly by while their main ally is taken out. No country in the vicinity can intervene either without suffering major consequences. I will do a quick rundown of countries and the risks involved.
Israel- Any military action by Israel will lead to a renewed conflict with Hezbollah as well as against Syria on the Golan front. Not to mention possible missile strikes from Iran.
Turkey- Iran and Syria would start to actively support the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey.
Lebanon- Is a non factor against Syria because Hezbollah effectively controls the country and they are Syria's allies.
Gulf States- Will suffer greatly when Iran closes off the strait of Hormuz. This coincidentally will also be a huge shock on the world economy as exports of oil from the region grind to a halt.
Russia- Already has a naval base at the port of Tartus in Syria. Syria happens to have a strong relationship with Russia and this was made more obvious when Russia used its veto power at the UN in support of Syria. It is safe to assume that in the event of intervention Russia will provide all the weaponry Syria needs and may play a role in preventing a naval blockade of Syria. I don't have to get into detail about what would result if any country attacked the Russian fleet at Tartus.
This is just a brief summary of the situation and a reason why I don't believe there will be intervention unless the countries involved are prepared for a massive regional war.
Also on a side-note while I concede that the government in Syria has many flaws I also think it is a great model for other countries in the region. Syria is one of the most diverse and tolerant countries in the middle east. Though Sunni muslims are the majority there are over 2 million Christians and close to 3 million Alawites as well as many Kurds. I fear that if the current government collapses the minorities in Syria will suffer greatly.
It is well documented that Syria became a safe haven for thousands of fleeing Christians from Iraq and I fear that a war will lead to more persecution. The best course of action I believe is to leave Syria to the Syrians and allow them to work their own problems out. Intervention will only lead to the deaths of thousands and the possible displacement of millions of people. |
Your sort of missing the point. A huge war in the region is inevitable and its going to happen sooner or later. Within the next ten years at longest. Israel is going to have its hand forced if Iran continues to pursue nukes, Israel has been talking a while that they will have to strike the nuclear facilities in Iran if Iran appears to be getting close to getting Nuclear weapons.
So Israel is already gearing up for this regional war. Statements from military say Israel is prepared for an air war with Iran, a ground incursion into Gaza and if necessary an incursion into Lebanon if Hezbollah attacks. Israel appears prepared for another huge war in the region and have realized that it is likely necessary.
Turkey is not stupid, they know that Iran is a huge threat to the regions stability. They know together Syria and Iran could try to take over the whole region. This threatens Turkey's influence and the last thing they want is a huge war to occur without their prior knowledge. Turkey knows they have to be a major player. Turkey also knows what is at stake and they don't want Iran getting nukes either.
Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia has long been concerned with Iran's power and influence and Saudi Arabia has publicly talked about the fact that Iran needs to be dealt with. I doubt Saudi Arabia will be too concerned to see Iran fall fighting alongside Syria. Saudi Arabia wants to be one of the more influential countries in the Middle East and they don't want Iran exerting any more authority.
The rest of the Arab states, most of them feel threatened by Iran and given the chance to off Syria and Iran they would definitely bite at the opportunity. With an Israeli , Iranian conflict inevitable an intervention into Syria would see the end of the threat to the region. Sure Israel would still exist but the gulf states and the other middle eastern countries would no longer have to fear Iran or Syria.
Iran will be crippled by Israel's over whelming air power, a ground incursion is far less likely. But the air campaign should destroy the Iranian Air Force, the missile defence network and cripple the nuclear facilities. With Syria also out of the picture Iran will no longer pose a threat to regional stability.
Lastly the guy who mentioned Gaddafi's army was only 10,000 reservists. That's not what the stats say. I read 50,000 in the army (Volunteers 25k and reservists 25k) an Air Force of 21,000 personal and Navy 8,000.Include the feared Pan-African Union (Mercenary force which Gaddafi hired to help him control the country) they number around 7,000.
That may not be 200,000 like Syria but it was definitely a big enough force to control Libya. Also those who say Libyan forces would have crushed the rebellion if Nato didn't intervene. Well thats not entirely true, Gaddafi's forces were posed to enter Benghazi but their entrance would have been a slaughter. The city wouldn't have fallen over night and Libya's Air Force wasn't capable of destroying the armor and weapons in the city. It would have been a blood bath and the fighting would have continued for months much like how with over whelming force Gaddafi's troops couldn't take Misrata. Then you must also look west where the rebelion was growing, yah Gaddafi had cleared Zawiya but they would have had a very tough time clearing the mountains.
Not to mention a lot of Gaddafi's forces were secretly waiting for their chance to turn. The rebellion would have eventually led to more desertions The civil war would have likely lasted 5-10 years but Gaddafi would have been toppled in the end. Though users are right and Syria has far more sophisticated weapons, but if they face deserters on the scale of Libya and stiff enough protests even those weapons will not spare them. Its very hard for a Government to stay in power when the people have decided its over.
