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.