Gambil: helping "good" guys kill "bad" guys

Don't you mean "bad guys killing bad guys."

If the West arms the Rebels & they win they will then turn those arms on the West, who gave them the arms. They would have been given the arms because "it was Allah's will."

Let them keep fighting it out. Fanatics fighting fanatics means lots of dead fanatics & that's a good thing. If Assad wins he will massacre all the Rebels. If The Rebels win they will massacre Assad's supporters, then they will turn on each other. All good.

I haven't got a clue what E[u(w)], E[u(p)] are. Too academic for me. You have got to remember the K.I.S.S. principal.

Hi Gary,

It is clear that you have access to a mass of information in the form of socio, political, economic and religious variables. You also seek to apply a couple of war vs. peace algorithms. What you failed to do was give us the benefit of what value the symbols represent or how they are modeled.

In the end you offer heaps of information but no actionable knowledge.

Most of us understand that the two main protagonists, Shia and Sunni, have been in conflict since the 7th century. We also understand that there has been growing polarization between each of these religions and various regimes throughout that region, particularly during the last 100 years.

We also understand that each of these regimes represents some form of dictatorship, military, religious or benign dictatorship in the form of Royal Families. I think these are the most commonly understood factors and perhaps for non academic consumption your article might get more traction by focusing on these.

That done, you can then start to explain (without algorithms) what impact the Western nations are having in terms of “interference” through trade, globalization, politics, financial and military aid.

It seems to me that the West cannot do anything for any one of these regimes, without being seen as the enemy of the other. Do something for a Sunni aligned regime and you upset some other Shia aligned regime.

It appears to be a zero sum game for the West (also for China and Russia). So perhaps there is a case for letting them get on with it?

Some help from you here would be good

Hi Spindoc,

Thanks for some sense.

But why don't outside powers try this option ? During the Spanish Civil War, democrats against Franco's fascists, the western allies (UK, US, France) blockaded Spanish ports to stop any arms getting to the legal government. This half-measure didn't stop the Nazis and Italian fascists flooding arms in to support Franco, which eventually overcame the democratic forces.

I'm not suggesting such a half-measure, but a full measure of blockading, for example, all Syrian (and perhaps Lebanese) ports to stop any arms going to either side. Yes, that leave the Iranians and Russians and Chinese to pour arms into the country to help Assad, but i'm not suggesting that any of this will be easy. Can the West (i.e. the US) do deals with those countries to keep their arms out of Syria ?

In other words, is it too late, and too impractical, to slow the flow of armaments into Syria to either side ? Clearly, for the Yanks to send arms to the rebels is to make a rod for its own back, down the track. Starve all sides of weapons, if possible, so that the war grinds down to a war of attrition.

The tragedy of three-way conflicts like this is that the democrats/secularists are always the weakest party of the three: nationalist dictatorship vs. Islamists vs. democrats.

No happy endings.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Good points and yes, blockades and sanctions have some merit but as always, it is a matter of getting everyone and I mean everyone, to not only agree but to implement.

Each has to be assessed on its merits but blockading or sanctioning Syria seems the most problematic.

Sanctions hurt just as many of the victims as they do the targets and they are exposed to “cheating” by those who see the chance to make a buck. Remember Kofi Annan’s son over the UN’s Iraq sanctions?

Blockades of such as Syria are I would suggest, almost impossible. Not only do they share borders with Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan an Israel plus 100kms of coastline, those borders are about as porous as you can get.

The local fiefdoms that occupy each side of these borders are expert smugglers of anything and everything and are “for hire” to the highest bidder.

We have just witnessed the bombing of one group in Lebanon by those who oppose the weapons and military support for the Assad regime from Lebanon.

Add to this the fact that each bordering nation has religious and political alignment with either the regime or the opposition. They also have their own resident “oppositions”. Like the Kurds in Eastern Turkey and Iraq. Lebanon has pro and anti Syrian regime supporters and even Jordan is schizophrenic, with The Saudi’s and Iranians also being ideologically opposed.

So to answer your question, IMHO it is too late and too impractical to ever slow the flow of arms into any of these countries.

Curiously, these nations that are now so different religiously and politically are at war with each other and yet, it is only 55 years ago since they were all part of the Arab Army that twice invaded Israel. Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt made up the bulk of the 600,000 strong army, now they can’t agree on anything.

They all seem intent on self destruction and I’m not convinced that China, Russia or the USA can do anything about it? Saudi Arabia maybe?

"As the Syrian civil war rages on with no end in sight, many advocates of U.S. intervention are claiming that an infusion of Western arms to carefully vetted rebel factions will help bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict."

This is woolly thinking, to put it kindly.

US thinking this century appears to be based on the assumption that democracy can be implemented feasibly and peacefully in Middle Eastern countries that have been ruled by 'strong men'. However, as developments in Egypt have shown, the removal of those men has resulted in 'democratically-elected' islamist-dominated governments that do not govern democratically, thanks to their carrying out previously unstated objectives to implement sharia law -- it is unconvincing to conclude that the exercise of sharia law is compatible with the practice of democracy. In the process, there has been vast instability and minority groups such as the Copts in Egypt and have been victimised and heavily discriminated against.

Sadly, the US has not learnt from its mistaken thinking, and now is going down the same road in Syria. It appears highly unlikely that removal of the current regime would help bring about a peaceful resolution.

These guys have got all the weapons they need to annihilate each other, including their innocent non combatant woman and children.
That said, yes supply them some arms, but only to even/balance the contest!
After that, we'd likely bring this conflict to and end in weeks, if we in the so-called west, simply stopped buying all Middle East or Russian oil!
I mean, where do you think the money is coming from to continue this mindless, or religiously inspired conflict(s)?
And once we'd taken the necessary steps to end this self harming pernicious reliance, we'd like see the price of energy come down to the point, where real genuine economic recovery would not only be possible, but a period of unprecedented prosperity could be ushered in as well!
Rhrosty.