General News Time for action

I know many of you have said, Let's stay out of it. Don't you see, this is one reason we should not stay out of it?

As much as I hate what Assad did and is doing, minorities such as LGBT and Christians were safer under his rule.

To the members on here who are from Syria, and I can think of two, I urge you to lay low.
Do not reveal you are gay to anyone.

I saw on the news yesterday that it's gotten very bad for gays in Nigeria too. I think gays in Africa were totally blamed for spreading HIV and this is the backlash. Not as bad as in Syria, but bad enough.

What is the LGBT community in the free world doing for their persecuted brothers and sisters in foreign lands? What can we do besides signing petitions? Pressure them via the media and our governments? Put sanctions on them? Ideas?

 

We don't have to support Assad to fight daesh. Supporting freedom fighters seems like a good idea, but I am not 100% sure about how that will play out. To me, it seems like a better idea than helping Assad, or carpet bombing Syria. Wars are not my area of expertise, though. IDK.

 

Oh, I have no desire to help Assad. None. We need to oust him too. Definitely!

 

:rolle:

Converting our energy system to rely on solar and other renewables would do more to stop Isis than anything else.

Also, we are bombing the absolute shit out of them already.

 

Yeah, pretty much this.

 

I'm definitely against supporting Assad, since he gasses his own people, and I'm definitely against supporting ISIL to topple Assad as well. I don't think it would be smart of the US to get involved here, as it's especially hard to find someone we can trust in this conflict. Other than bringing in refugees fleeing Syria, I don't really support any other intervention unless the US is actually attacked by ISIL.

 

I think this speech earlier this year by Sarah Haider is particularly relevant to this discussion.

[YOUTUBE]0plC24YuoJk[/YOUTUBE]

The problem is not only ISIS. They are merely the symptom. The problem cannot be solved with bombs and through conventional military means. It can only be solved through the spread of secularism and real liberal ideas and values.

 

Our bestest friend in the whole world is the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and they are every bit the violent, bigoted, fundamentalist assholes that Isis is and yet, well they're our good buds to such a degree that we take out their rivals for them.

Sometimes it's hard to tell exactly who is the client state in this relationship.

Btw, Ted Cruz heavily implied he'd use nukes against Isis, in case anyone was trying to figure out who the good guys are. My god what a shitlord

 

Penalty for Homosexuality in Saudia Arabia: "Prison sentences of several months to life, fines and/or whipping/flogging, chemical castration, torture, vigilante execution or death can be sentenced on first conviction. A second conviction merits execution."

Doesn't seem much different than what happens in ISIS territory.

 

ISIS needs to burn

 

As much as I appreciate and share the anger of those who wish to go to war (it's tricky going to war with a non-state actor, I'll point out, as the goals are much harder to define when the limitations of statehood don't exist), it's important that reconstruction remain on everyone's minds. Indeed, it's probably necessary to have a reconstruction plan prepared before any war plan might be proposed, because war is helpful only insofar as it destroys and removes, two results which can't be helpful for very long. I'm actually rather annoyed with governments like France's, Russia's, Iran's and Australia's, which have decided to pursue military action before coming to a global or regional consensus as to how Syria might recover as a society and as a state. As much as each obviously prefers different factions for different reasons, it's a complete tragedy of the commons which helps nobody, least of all the Syrian people, if the present stalemate exists or if one wins without popular consent.

Economic development, political reconstruction and social/religious reconciliation are three pillars of Syrian recovery I believe need to be worked towards. Each will not be able to last for long (or at all) without one the support of the other two and ISIL mustn't be treated as a problem independent of a broader Syrian solution. I'll discuss the political and social/religious problems as one because they feed into each other too much to make them distinct.

Economically, it's really important that Syrian refugees are given opportunities to work. It's a significant problem that Syrians in Jordan, for example, do not have work in camps and are forced to wallow in a dreadful state of poverty, dependency and idleness. Many are turning to gangs or prostitution. In Lebanon, Syrians' inability to work at a Lebanese rate causes abuse of Syrian workers, so simply letting Syrians loose to fill in the gaps left in their host countries is not exactly viable; a country of educated and ambitious people can't be made to work only at mundane jobs with a poor pay forever. There needs to be a cohesive effort to try to make Syria's economy kickstart even while it's in exile; having Syrians work for large companies, implementing training programmes and even allowing the irregular condition of Syrian companies being created or working largely out of Syria, but with an ultimate aim of repatriating their workers. I don't really know what could be done within Syria for the time being, though. Even if relatively united (or at least with communities and political movements agreeing to a cordial, but distant, relationship), Syria might quickly collapse again if an economic failure occurs the moment the state is returned to partial stability and people lose faith.

Politically, there need to be a lot of changes, probably starting with Assad. He must go. There is no way the majority of Syria would accept his continued rule and he has lost legitimacy in virtually every country in the world. Even Russia isn't particularly enamoured of him. The Ba'ath Party probably shouldn't be disbanded (at least not forcibly) and it definitely shouldn't form a government by itself, but Assad as an individual might need to go into exile at very least. I'd like to see him face the ICC, but Syria is not party to the Rome Statute, which largely scraps that option. An internal prosecution might be necessary, but it would face the risk of being or seeming to be a political witch-hunt. Either way, unless Assad is himself held accountable in some way, I fear the Alawites as a whole might be targeted. A new government might be seen as anti-Alawite if it goes against Assad, but because Assad hasn't got the full support of all Alawites and because a fair trial would presumably put the focus on the government as an institution and would shine the spotlight on individuals, a prosecution is probably the best way to avoid hatred against Alawites as a punishment for Assad's brutality. So politically, the removal of the government of the rump state and a trial against Assad and senior officials is needed. As much as Russia and Iran argue that Assad isn't the biggest enemy, he is an enormous roadblock to peace and his continued presence would fuel the flames that lead to ISIL's appeal. Make no mistake, Bashar al-Assad has not been overshadowed as the problem by ISIL. He and his government are both a problem in their own right and related to ISIL's rise.

But there's also the issue that Syria's communities are at odds. This problem has long existed, but to a healthier extent prior to the civil war. Of course Shi'ites and Sunnis do not always see eye-to-eye, nor do Alawites accord with more mainstream Shi'ites religiously. These groups aren't fundamentally incapable of interactions on other levels, but it would now be too much to ask them to remain within a unitary state, with each community at the mercy of whichever group manages to dominate the central government. Federalism is a good alternative. Were each community able to more or less able to govern its own affairs, the friction between them would be far less prominent than it would be, were they to continue to vie for influence all at once and throughout the whole country. I don't really have a solution for exactly how this federation would look and ISIL would obviously need to be massively contained or destroyed before a Sunni component state or states could exist within Syria, but it is not tenable to continue with a unitary government. There would have to be checks within the federal states to ensure that each doesn't develop a communal majoritarian tyranny and a new federal government would probably need a system of apportionment (such as the senates of the USA or Australia, for example) so that each community is represented. For the sake of that, I'll just throw out that I think a largely parliamentary and less presidential system would be preferable. I'll also say that I don't believe in a total partition, which would create new nation states. Federalism allows for communities to govern themselves with the constant reminder that they are still part of a larger state with different communities. Sovereign states based on communities might quickly turn nastier for minorities. Damascus would probably be a self-governing city with no overt communal affiliation, to be a symbol of the nation, which is rather important. The Syria whose territory was shaped by the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never and certainly is no longer sustainable. It needs to be changed.

I don't really know what to do about the land that ISIL holds. On the one hand, their central territories could simply be excluded from any peace deal and we can hope the civilians located there would see a Syria under construction as a better opportunity. On the other hand, it's not exactly welcoming to see a state formed explicitly excluding you because of the occupying force in your region. To treat the people under ISIL's control as Salafist terrorists is not accurate; some 30,000 ISIL fighters are confirmed to exist, though as many as 100,000 (certainly not the 200,000 claimed by jihadists) might be active. That's not the majority in the lands they hold. Many people cannot escape. Others have fled (though this is changing thanks to increased Russian involvement) to ISIL's lands because the Syrian government's attacks focused against other forces further to the west of the country were rather indiscriminate, whereas Western airstrikes in ISIL-controlled territories have come with warnings and avoid directly targeting civilians, and because ISIL attacks occur less in ISIL's territory. Also, as intimidating as it is to see ISIL's territory on a map, they control a great deal of desert, simply because they occupy far-flung towns and the largely empty land between those is simply seen as theirs. ISIL is a great threat, but merciless attacks against them just isn't a solution on its own. It galvanises them and alienates other Sunnis if no alternative solution exists; when your choice is between foreign bombs or domestic bombs with no real end in sight, what do you really care about who is right or wrong?

I am presently against foreign intervention in Syria not because I believe it is inherently wrong, but because so little is agreed upon. Russia probably doesn't really care about Assad that much; they want to maintain a base in Latakia and secure an ally in Syria. If they can be convinced that even a neutral Syria is better than the status quo, they might play game. Iran is as usual rather unhelpful and fervently pushing for Shi'ite control. They might have to be convinced that they'll never win and that at least Syrian Shi'ites might not lose under a new solution.

I've seen a lot of criticisms of the West, particularly America, for not doing as much as Russia is now. I merely say that what Russia is doing is effective only under a very limited definition of success. Bombing ISIL is all well and good, but I am certain that it means next to nothing without holding talks on a restructuring of Syria and an ultimate reunification of the country. I've scarcely mentioned Iraq, because Iraq at least has a half-functioning state, but Iraq can't just crush ISIL and hope for the best; it needs to work through a Shi'ite-Sunni agreement, possibly also involving devolved powers, to avoid the alienation that Nouri al-Maliki's government caused and that even the new government, led by a Kurdish president and a Shi'ite PM, hasn't adequately addressed.

It feels good when bombs drop. We see ISIL convoys destroyed and land retreated. But that's not enough. The solution worked out with negotiations, endless reams of paper and countless tried and failed policies will be the solution that truly gives us hope. It will take decades. It will see setbacks. But it's so much more important and so much more durable than the emotionally-appealing prospect of bombing ISIL into the ground and leaving it at that. Going to war means we have to consider the aftermath. It needs to be coordinated and international, but with direction from domestic leaders. It's not easy and it's liable to fail. But it's also just about the only thing that might succeed in creating a Syria capable of functioning as a civil society.

It's that conversation that I think matters the most.

---------- Post added 6th Dec 2015 at 02:00 PM ----------

Also, just to draw that post more into line with the OP's point, I just want to say that destroying ISIL will do nothing if there's no civil society to replace the chaos in Syria at the moment. How ISIL treats gay men is disgusting and must stop, but that doesn't really mean that the solution the OP proposed is a solution or the problem we should be focusing on.

 

Aussie792 -

I agree with most of what you've said, and as well as your reasoning. However, were I differ slightly, is the path forward. I think there really is only one realistic path forward that would be acceptable to us, and that path starts by working with the Kurds. In particular the PYD / YPG. Of course, the problem here is Turkey, but I am sure we both agree that Turkey is a bad actor.

The West should make common ground with Russia to solve the concerns it has over Syria, and work toward an agreement that has Assad stepping down from power. However, Assad should not go until we can ensure that the Alawites will not face ethnic cleansing. I am sure that this can be secured by working with the Kurds.

One of our primary goals for the Syrian conflict, and through working with the Kurds, should be to establish a safe zone in Kurdish held territory. Basically, this is the safe zone in which international forces will operate. This area should be made safe for refugees.

The long term goal should be to begin building the allies that we want and need in the region here in the safe zone. We want them to be secular, progressive, and to respect human rights. We need to begin building those institutions, and training people who are willing to pledge loyalty to those institutions. Those individuals could then go out and retake portions of Syria, bit by bit.

As you note, it would take decades and decades. However, I believe once we have a base of operations in the region, we can begin building the necessary institutions that will be required to hold a modern nation state together, and training the people to retake the territory claimed by ISIS and other rebel groups that would be opposed to a secular and progressive government.

I believe our biggest obstacle in dealing with the Syrian problem is Turkey followed by numerous Arab nations. There needs to be an aggressive display of zero tolerance against those regional powers and their meddling in the affairs of Syria. Turkey in particular is hugely problematic in this situation. Obviously, they have self-interest, and we cannot deny that. It would be a bit like telling Canadian's that they shouldn't be concerned about what takes place in the United States, considering the fact that they share a huge border with us. So, telling Turkey to shut up and sit down is obviously silly. However, it cannot be denied that Turkey's goals and our goals are not in alignment. We can't ignore that Turkey itself is going down a dangerous path, and that has to be addressed and taken into consideration as well.

So, while I am not sure how we tackle the Turkey problem, I think the path forward is obvious: The Kurds are the closest people in the region who share our values. They are receptive and welcoming to us. They would gladly accept our aid and support, and in turn we can shape the direction in which they develop--further bringing them in alignment with our values and goals for the region.

 

So what about the refugees we've got over here? Don't they deserve some action as well?

Time for war? Time for killing human beings, destroy and spread more hate? Again?

Oh, but this is all about we the good guys versus them the bad guys... Ok, I see your point now... So we can live with collateral damages? More of them? Again?

Not in my name...

 

Support the Free Syrian Army today and then fight them tomorrow. Perhaps it would be more effective to know who we supply now so they aren't supplied against later. Anything else that can be said has already been said and better.

 

The Middle-East right now feels like one of those things where you need a degree of 10 years of studying minimum to have any sort of idea of what's going on. It's so damn complicated to me.