This is an entirely Middle Eastern problem. The West would be well advised to stay out of the whole mess.

Why aren't the Oil rich Arab Nations stepping up to the plate on this one? It's because they want the West to intervene so they have someone to hate.

In the end, who really cares. It's Muzzies killing Muzzies & that's a good thing. Isn't it.

Step back & let 'em go for it. Refuse all refugees from the area. We, in the West, don't want or need the problems they bring with them.

A revealing piece of Zionist propaganda from the Middle East Forum, a right wing think tank which seeks to "promote American interests in the Middle East." His enlistment of sectarian extremists is nothing short of frightening. Zealots never learn the simple story of those who would ride the tiger.

And, you have a solution to the problem Leslie.

I'm neither Left, Right or Centre. A bit of CDF would tell anybody to stay out of the problem & let 'em go for it. Don't even pick up the pieces after. I don't care who he writes for either. I never heard of them. I don't take any interest in any groups so I couldn't tell you who is who he game other than they're all the same to me. Who cares.

It is an intriguing proposition.

Now that Syria has been caught using chemical weapons, the field is open to supply the rebels fighting the 3 evils of the middle east namely Assad, Hezbollah and Iran.

With a vast population majority, the Shiites single weakness has been the lack of weapons. Supplied with anti tank weapons and portable artillery, Assad and his allies will be fighting ghosts and in a war of attrition, will find it very hard to win.

If the US plays its cards right it will have hugely weakened Hezbollah and Iran, and leave Iran isolated.

There was a similar situation in Afghanistan when Russia invaded, and when Iran attacked Iraq (after taking American hostages), US weapons turned an expected quick Iranian victory into a destruction of Iran's air force, losses of hundreds of thousands of men, an economy in ruins, and an eventual capitulation.

Shadow Minister,

I think you meant "With a vast population majority in Syria, the Sunnis' single weakness has been the lack of weapons."

But that is being remedied by a flow of arms, mainly one suspects, to Islamists rather than 'democrats', from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, each with their own groups to support and axes to grind.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has moved in thousands of commandos to support Assad and, with a growing civil conflict in Shia-majority Iraq, it may not be long before the war spills over across the region - perhaps first to involve Iraq, then perhaps Jordan. And from there, who knows ?

During the Spanish 'Civil War', the US and Britain blockaded Spanish ports in order to stop weapons getting to the elected government. The Nazis and Italian fascists flew vast amounts of munitions in, along with an entire air force, courtesy of the Germans, which bombed the daylights out of Guernica and many other cities.

My preference would certainly be a complete and effective blockade of Syria, by sea and air. But how to bring that off ? Especially when so many outside governments, Sunni here and Shi'a there, think they can win by pumping in arms to 'their' side.

It's going to be a long war of attrition, unless Obama can pull a rabbit out of the hat and sweet-talk Putin into doing a deal, and the new government in Iran as well. This will probably involve a coalition government, with Assad and secular forces sitting down together, wiping the blood from each others' hands. Between them, they may have to take up arms again against the Islamists who, ironically, may lay claim to represent most of the population.

What a ghastly situation when governments think they can win a war - in somebody else's country, at somebody else's expense.

Joe

Loudmouth: unless Obama can pull a rabbit out of the hat and sweet-talk Putin into doing a deal,

I don't see what it's got to do with Obama or Putin. It's none of the Wests dam business. This is a Middle Eastern affair, nothing to do with the West. Close the Borders, don't let the anybody out. If some country wants to intervene let it be Middle Eastern Countries only.

Pull all Aid out as well, if they want to stay, fair enough but they're on their own. If they get into trouble, Stiff Bickies.

They're only Muzzies anyway, one gene away from Apes, who cares, 93000 & counting, be-uddie.

This is yet another example of ill-informed comment on the Middle East. OLO seems to be making a habit of inviting contributors to write on foreign affairs when it is blindingly obvious that they are not so much commentators as advocates for a particular cause or causes.

I have not read such an ill-informed piece as this one for quite some time. It is wrong on virtually every substantive point. Judging by most of the comments thus far, its readers are not any better informed.

It is sad that OLO is stooping so low. Either it should ask for articles from persons who actually know something about the topic they are writing on, or they should stop pretending to be a forum for informed commentary.

Agreed James O'Neill. Syria is an ally of Iran and the Western Oligarchs want the Iranian oil. The accusations of Assad using chemical weapons are as credible as Saddham Huessien having weapons of mass destruction. They never existed, yet the USA invaded Iraq for their oil under the lie of making Iraq free.

The USA created the dictator Saddham Huessien, however he started trading oil in Euros, instead of US $ and tried to break away from Western Imperialism, thus he had to go. It is the trading of oil and commodities in US $ which under pins their fiat currency.

Too many ill informed loud mouths comment without knowing the facts.

Shadow Minister - Both sides in the conflict have been caught using chemical weapons.

But do you really believe what the Americans say, they have lost credibility so many times it is laughable.

http://tarpley.net/ Webster Tarpley in my view is the best independent Geo-political analyser in the West.

You will remember a few months ago that Obama sacked General David Petraeus as head of the CIA.30 other senior officials went also. The reason? While Obama supports the Western Imperialists, he does not support very possible nuclear war with Russia/China by attacking Syria and Iran.

At the recent Bilderberg meeting of Geo Political elites, David Petraeus was there and Tarpley thinks that Obama will deposed by some contrived scandal, thus clearing the way for a right wing war mongerer like Petraeus to take the helm.

Jayb,

I have to say that I object to your semi-racist comments.

But that aside, your point about the non-involvement of both the US and Russia is just what I was trying to get at, in my clumsy way - that they agree between themselves NOT to get involved by sending in yet more arms to one side or another, that they both non-intervene, if you like. Hopefully, much of the arms supply would thereby wither away. Yeah, right.

And, as you suggest, if all major outside players could agree to do that, including China, then the conflict could maybe be confined to just that part of the Middle east. If the governments there calculated that they could 'win', then they would fight on with their dwindling arms supplies, and great cost to their populations, but in an exhausting war of attrition, with a Pyrrhic victory going to the last man standing.

Which may have proved nothing. And we had such hopes of an Arab Spring. Maybe the societies there have to go gthrough the process of struggling for an Arab Magna Carta, an Arab Habeas Corpus, an Arab/Muslim recognition of the separation of church and state, and of constitutional democracy over autocracy or theocracy or sultanism. Yes, it's their fight, but I certainly hope that there are 'short-cuts' to democratic forms of government, that might save millions of lives and perhaps decades or hundreds of years.

Joe

Joe,

Yes, I typed Shiite when I mean Sunni.

The reality is that this has not been a purely civil war for a while. From the start Russia and Iran were supplying weapons, and now Iran and Hezbollah are directly involved in the fighting, because a Sunni majority government would be bad news for Iran, Russia and Hezbollah.

With Assad advancing on the battlefield there is no chance of a negotiated outcome. The options that the US and the EU have is to stand back and allow the repressive regime to be reimposed on the Sunnis and strengthen Iran's and Hezbollah's influence in the region, or to support the rebels in a more material way, stop Assad's advance, perhaps enable a negotiated settlement and let the Sunni majority have some say in their country. The isolation of Iran and Hezbollah would be the icing on the cake.

P.S. The claim by one UN official that the rebels had used chemical weapons was shown to be false.

Perhaps this is something of a side issue, but Shadow Minister has an interesting take on the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s - obviously not the same war I reported on. It began with Iraq invading Iran, not the other way round, Saddam Hussein hoping to take advanatge of Iran's internal chaos following the Islamic Revolution to grab some territory. His professional army had early successes, but sheer weight of number on the Iranian side - the use of 'human waves' - stalled his advance and for most of the eight-year conflict it was a World War I-style stalemate, with a ceasefire brokered by the UN finally being accepted by both war-weary sides.

Graham, don't be surprised at SM's views. Any resemblance between his view of history and actual history is unknown. In common with the original author , he ignores the overwhelming support for Iran shown at last year's non-aligned conference. Ditto the overwhelming support for Iran by the Arab population as shown in reputable opinion polls (as distinct from the views of their despotic leaders).

We now have David Cameron baldly stating that Syria has used chemical weapons when the evidence is virtually non-existent. The evidence is stronger that the "rebels" used such weapons, presumably with the intent of having it blamed on the Syrian government, as was set out in an email exchange published in the Daily Mail last January, but since gone down the memory hole. Are people so blindingly stupid that they cannot see that the chemical weapons canard is a re-run of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" propaganda that lead to a disastrous and illegal war?

Even if the allegation of chemical weapons use was true, the claimed deaths of 200 or thereabouts are fewer than those killed by the illegal Israeli air strikes on Syria this year, about which our abysmal government (and opposition) maintain a stunning silence.

The US sponsored attacks on the Syrian government were planned more than a decade ago as set out in numerous documents. Seymour Hersh wrote about it in the New Yorker in 2007 and it was old news even then. Yet the pathetic Bob Carr, who claims to be well read, seems incapable of understanding what is happening, or more likely does understand but is so captive to the US-Israeli axis that he cannot or will not speak up in Australia's interests.

James O'Neil: Bob Carr, who claims to be well read, seems incapable of understanding what is happening, or more likely does understand but is so captive to the US-Israeli axis that he cannot or will not speak up in Australia's interests.

What's it got to do with Australia?

James O'Neil: Syria has used chemical weapons. the "rebels" used such weapons.

Didn't I read a UN report lately that both sides had been using Chemical Weapons. We all know that all Governments lie to their people, that's nothing new. Political Correctness in the guise of Diplomacy.

This War has nothing to do with the West. It is an internal Middle Eastern problem. The West should stay well out of it, stop even reporting it or sending Aid to both sides. & let the Middle East take care of their own.

If the West get involved in any way they will blame the West for causing it, as usual with the result of more 7-11's down the track.

@Jaybe. There is a distinction between having an interest in a peaceful resolution of Middle Eastern conflicts and becoming militarily involved. Many western nations and their GCC allies have chosen to intervene militarily on behalf of the "rebels". I happen to think that is the wrong policy on a number of counts.

Australia does have an interest in peace in the region, also for a number of reasons. One is the strategic importance of oil and gas resources. A second is the general desire for the peaceful resolution of disputes. Australia's blind support for Israel and the US is not likely to result in a just and peaceful resolution. Thirdly, in case you had forgotten, Australia is a member of the Security Council which imposes special obligations to find a solution to conflicts within the terms of the UN Charter.

Putting one's head in the proverbial sand is not a policy option likely to appeal to any party, and neither is it a good one.

And just what do YOU propose should happen, James? Give me something to work with here.

Obviously you are anti Yank, Israel, etc. Personally I have no opinion on any Government. The UN has proven it's self to be a toothless Tiger. "All talk , no action." & if they do do something, it's too late & not enough. The CEO's have had a good holiday in grand style, then go away smiling at the mess they've left behind. Ditto to the Security Council. Then it's all explained with a Political Correct diplomatic Media Release on what a great job they are doing.

I look forward to a discussion on YOUR possible solution to the problem. What's the bet I don't get one. (other peoples job)

Jayb, Your well -intentioned neutralist stance has been left far, far behind as the conflict has escalated into a proxy international war, with the potential for catastrophic consequences. Don't you understand that the US, Russia, China, France, England, Turkey, Qatar, S. Arabia and other Gulf states, Iran, Iraq, Israel, the Moslem Brotherhood, jihadists of all persuasions and others, believing vital interests are at stake, are already intervening

Jayb, you make the fundamental error of confusing a dislike of a particular government's policies with being "anti Yank, Israel" etc. It is rather tiresome when one attempts to have a rational discussion on policies to have some anonymous person (to use a neutral term) hang a label on them as if that is a rational answer to anything.

I don't pretend to have a solution to an enormously complex problem, but I do think that some changes in policy would be a start. For example, you call the UN toothless, but why is that so? Part of the explanation is that the governments of some member states do not take it seriously and ignore their obligations under the Charter. Israel for example has ignored countless UN General Assembly resolutions condemning its behaviour, as well as a World Court ruling. It carries on regardless, and does so because it has the unqualified backing of the US. The latter country is the greatest purveyor of violence in the postwar world, yet can you cite a single example of its leaders being held accountable? Read Nick Turse's latest book "Kill Anything that Moves" (2013) for just one example of sustained criminality (in that case Vietnam) for which the perpetrators have not been held accountable.

Try reading something other than the News corp or Fairfax media for an insight into what is going on in the world. I could offer you a veritable library of resources (many of them American) that offer a different perspective than the narrowly xenophobic one you cling to. Try www.informationclearinghouse.com which daily publishes a wide range of opinion.

If you live in the southeast Queensland area I would be happy to debate these issues outside the narrow confines of OLO's comment's section.

JayB,

James O'Neill's version of history is completely fabricated to his own political ends.

Graham, while I might have got the initial start of the battle wrong, the point I was trying to make is that while the Iranian army started in a far stronger position with regards material, the continuous erosion together with US sanctions and resupply of the Iraqis left them in 1988 with a fraction of the air force and mechanised arms they started with. To quote:

"The United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq."

By 1988 Iran had been bleed of manpower and materiel, and was starting to lose the war. The cost of the ceasefire was to hand back all of the territory it had captured. The final result was casualties estimated at 1m for Iran and about 300k for Iraq. Iran from being the preeminent middle east power in the late 70s was effectively neutered.

The point I was trying to make was a comparison with Iran's and Hezbollah's involvement in Syria. Hezbollah has already lost 141 fighters, and tying the Iranian army into an endless guerilla conflict whilst enduring sanctions has the potential to weaken it further, and draw resources from its nuclear program.

Leslie: Don't you understand that the US, Russia, China, France, England, Turkey, Qatar, S. Arabia and other Gulf states, Iran, Iraq, Israel, the Moslem Brotherhood, jihadists of all persuasions and others, believing vital interests are at stake, are already intervening.

Yes I do. What I am saying is that the US, Russia, China, France, England, Turkey & Israel should stay out of the whole mess. Let the Middle East Nations sort it out themselves. It's none of the Wests business. The Muslims just want the West to intervene so they have someone to Jihad with. Let's not give them an excuse.

With any luck there will be a last man standing & he can be taken on a one way fishing trip. Do I have any respect for any of these people? None what-so-ever they're Muzzies anyway. One step away from the tree & an Medieval religion that wants to see us all dead or living back in the 8th. century.

James, I do live in SE Qld. Scenic Rim. I have had a cursory glance at the site you gave me. I'll have a closer inspection later.

J O"N: for just one example of sustained criminality (in that case Vietnam) for which the perpetrators have not been held accountable.

The NVA is never going to be held accountable for the things I have seen them commit. The reporters were prevented from reporting the Communist atrocities. Men, Women & children hacked to death because they had Hershey Bars & American cigarettes. Or is it only American atrocities that concern you.

If you really want to know how disgusting the Banking Military Industrial Complex is, see Oliver Stone's. 'The untold History of the USA' that is currently on pay TV.

Our Western Oligarchs are totally out of control and are using Climate Change,environmentalism and threat of a nuclear holocaust as the excuse to impose their fascist 'New World Order'.

The UN's Agenda 21 was instigated back in 1968.This global imperialist take over,has been planned for a long time.

J. O’Neill
Your frustration is understandable, but you must persist with your rational arguments. Beyond the geriatric few who dominate all the “debates” in On Line (with their predictable prejudices) there are people more open minded and not blinded by the propaganda and ignorance that distorts debate about Syria. It’s clear how the peaceful, democratic protests against an abominable regime escalated when Qatar began arming jihadists, and Mrs Clinton insisted from the outset that there could be no political settlement (“Assad must go “), and how this has become a proxy international conflict. More difficult to explain , because difficult historical concepts are involved, is how this is not a local conflict, but about the restructuring of the Middle East and control of energy resources.
And at another level, the original Gambill article , revealed in horrifying clarity the total disregard of realpolitic for the terrible cost in human suffering.

The real issues we should be debating are those raised by Pepe Escobar:
"The key (unstated) reason for Qatar to be so obsessed by regime change in Syria is to kill the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria [natural gas] pipeline, which was agreed upon in July 2011. The same applies to Turkey, because this pipeline would bypass Ankara, which always bills itself as the key energy crossroads between East and West.

It's crucial to remember that the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is … anathema to Washington…. The difference is that Washington in this case can count on its allies Qatar and Turkey to sabotage the whole deal."

Leslie,

That may be true, it probably is, but there are so many other issues besides oil - the cross-cutting issues of secular democratic versus dictatorship, and Sunni versus Shi'a, for two other factors. Each of the countries in the region have strong nationalist ambitions, the Saudis, Turkey, the various Gulf States, Iran.

And I do recall a few years ago an initiative to pipe natural gas from Iran and Turkmenistan across the Caspian and through Russia, bypassing Turkey, and in opposition to another pipeline planned from Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan through Georgia, with Chinese backing. It's a very messy world :)

Joe

Loudmouth: And I do recall a few years ago an initiative to pipe natural gas from Iran and Turkmenistan across the Caspian and through Russia, bypassing Turkey, and in opposition to another pipeline planned from Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan through Georgia, with Chinese backing. It's a very messy world :)

I thought they had finished those a few years ago around the time of the Russian/Georgian War? I may be wrong.

Leslie, as Loudmouth said, "It's a messy World." That why the likes of Assange are desperately needed to expose the BS by all the World Governments. And now this new guy. People are slowly beginning to wake up & act.

Arjay, yes I am watching, ‘ Oliver Stone's. 'The untold History of the USA' so far it's not telling me I didn't already know. If you saw "Apocalypse Now The Redux." would you know that almost everything that is portrayed in that movie is true. It just didn't happen all at once like in the movie. Oh the Author was warned by the Government not to publish. He did & had a car accident & was killed on a lonely stretch of road 3 months later. Strange that. Oh, again the Marlon Brando Character was based on 2 people one was an ex CO of mine from Cairns, an Australian. The other, an American, lived at Murwillumbah until recently before he went back to America to die of Cancer. Both had a CIA price on their head. As Willard was told, “He’s winning the War without any restraints.”

Cont,

cont,

As far as the middle East goes. Let them destroy themselves to the last man then step in, but not before. Of course the big cry is, 'what about the civilians' There are no civilians. They are all involved in the fight, Men, women & children. They are used to it. It's been this way for 5000 years. Our perception of horror is entirely different to theirs. That's what the Do Gooders in the West fail to understand. The fighting & killing each other is just natural to them. I know that it's hard for us to comprehend. But thems the facts, lump it or leave it.

Jayb,

I think that that pipeline had about thirty miles to go through Georgia to the northern Turkish border when the Russians invaded in 2008, precisely to stop the whole project dead. Bullying worked in that case.

Joe