I am no expert in military offensives, nor a fan of the military in general but the reign of death and terror should be somehow be stopped alredy. NATO has intervened in the past in the balkans (just to give off one example) when the people started killing each other out of nationalism, religious conviction and other similar reasons. Why is it “we” do not now have the courage to stand up and stop the killings in Syria now? Because it’s too far away? Because it’s still rather unfamiliar to us? Because we don’t know what the other neighbouring countries will do? Because we don’t know what to do with whoever ends up governing their countries afterwards?

But what about the people suffering and the massacres which are taking place as we speak? Somehow I have the feeling “we” are better at always regretting not taking action soon enough than learning from our past and making the hard decisions when it matters…

your comment is quite extensive but I try to react on your arguments. Basically, I more-or-less agree with the line of argumentation that Western countries should not impose their style of governing into regions where democracy is not so much in favour. That is because I see no causation in claim that after foreign intervention, country somehow manages to become democratic. So, democracy needs some pre-conditions to come true. Certainly, there are some countries who recovered after foreign intervention and presence. Namely, post-war Germany or Japan, South Korea too. But it seems that this pattern is not valid for Middle/Near Eastern countries (lacking pre-conditions for democracy).

But, on the other hand, I disagree with argument for arming rebels in Syria. If we just make a quick survey about the composition of Syrian rebels, we will find out that there are not all guys who loves freedom or share democratic ideals. In fact, rebel group, as Anastacia rightly said, is diverse. That means you have there liberals, socialists as well as conservatives and jihadists (there are reports that Al-Quada is involved in conflict as well). It is not clear which affiliation prevails. But after reading some articles about the violence rebels have made and some of their claims about religious and ethnic minorities, I am pretty aware that even if rebels win, Syria will become all but sectarian violence country. It will cause further damages on people’s lives. Therefore, there is no point for me to arm the rebels. The benefits of arming are smaller than future costs of doing it.

But as you said, this is real dilemma for Western world. That means we do not know exact answer. We have only slightly bad and bad solutions for this conflict.

First of all, it is rather evident that there is no clear-cut answer, or at any rate any answer that would be good enough. It is more or less the same dilemma western countries faced during the civil war in Libya. Invade, and you run up your costs, all the while being portrayed by many as cold-blooded western imperialists. Don’t invade, and you cannot possibly help maintain the façade of the protectors of human rights, global peace, and international and stable democracy.

This collective dilemma finds its way into the minds of not just the officials of the Western countries (those that aren’t otherwise occupied anyway-let us not forget that there is always the elephant in the room called the financial, economic, political and social crisis that these countries are going through, which threatens to shake their core modus operandi to its foundations), but also of the citizens of these countries who are still able to think by looking at the bigger, global picture.

With that latter in mind, I shall make my case against the motion, based on two main lines of argumentation: A) that it isn’t actually possible, or beneficial, for the Western countries to get involved in such an operation right now. and B) that were it to happen, it wouldn’t actually be beneficial to the cause of the Syrians rebels either, not in the long term. But I won’t stop at that, I will try to propose a middle ground-a resolution, if you will-that will provide a chance for the long-sought termination of the conflict.

A)The Western Countries

Ever since the war in Libya it has become rather evident that the Western countries, for all their apparent might, cannot stomach full-time and powerful interventions of the likes of the wars is Afghanistan or Iraq. And when I say stomach, I mean both economically and politically.

The first part could do without further explanation-after all, the three wars mentioned above all but bankrupted the UK, the USA and France, the three main participants. But on top of that, came a crisis, the crisis, with its multiple aspects, faces and consequences.

More than anything, it is a crisis of the banking institutions and their capitalist financial system, the very core of the Western World’s economy, political establishments and society. Now, as all of you might have quite intelligently remarked, both the EU and the US are still barely afloat thanks to some merely systemic technical tricks-as is the Solidarity Pact in the EU or the raise of the credit limit of the US government as voted by the US federal parliament. For some EU countries, namely Greece and Cyprus, but also Spain, Italy and quite possibly even France and the UK, the crisis threatens at presence their very existence as economically and politically independent nation countries. So embarking on a humanitarian crusade in Syria, given the current state of our economies-when a single major in-discrepancy could blow the entire fragile balance off-a crusade that would cost billions at least is not something considerable or imaginable. We are indeed to busy fighting to save our own countries-some of which are themselves on the brink of a social-at the least-civil war, to occupy ourselves with anything else.

Anyway, to pass to the second part, id est the political one, if we were to believe some eminent geopolitical analysts, at least some of the aspects of the crisis, or at least the manipulation of its handling, have to do with many a vast geopolitical plan, centred for the most part around the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East-right on Syrian’s doorstep. If you could imagine a world-wide chessboard and take notice of the strategic moves of the world powers, you would see that for some reason the pieces are moving around that area. Any, and I mean ANY destabilisation has the potential to unleash hell-and such an intervention, no matter which country decides to intervene first, would definitely liquidate the sensitive balances in the region on the spot, providing the pretext for a domino of events whose outcome we couldn’t possible begin to imagine how to predict or control. And if the Western countries can’t stomach actively participating in a minor war, imagine having to hold themselves together in a conflict of a vastly greater magnitude and scale. If anything, any such conflict will first and foremost undo Syria, a country already devastated, a country whose viability in many aspects is dubious even if the civil war was to stop upon completion of this phrase. And that gives me a neat pass to develop my next line of arguments.

B) The Syrian (rebel) cause.

Well, I think that anyone with a reasonable mind and a humanitarian mindset likes to think himself a advocate of democracy. After all, that is why we ordinary citizens face the dilemma I described in my brief introduction, even if our leaders have their own, “mysterious” motives. And anyone who advocates democracy should be, more or less, for the general cause of the Rebels-apparently overthrowing a totalitarian (semi-)military regime and establishing a state based on the will and the needs of its people.

Oversimplified as that may be, it is the governing idea, the basis upon which this dilemma is laid before us, as well as the foundation of our opinions on the subject. So, acting on the presumption that we ultimately would wish to see the Rebels prevail, we must indeed wonder if and how a full western military intervention would help further and support that cause.

The answer, of course, is that it wouldn’t, in any way. If a country is “liberated” by foreign powers, it most usually is obliged afterwards to abide to the will and the “instructions” of those powers. I could recite many historical examples, starting by my own country, but there’s no need to look farther than Afghanistan or Iraq, where in the areas under the control of the official state that was established by them, the invading forces have the first, commanding and most often decisive word. That in itself defeats the purpose of democracy and national self-determination, as the Syrian people would rid themselves of one overlord simply to see him replaced with other, still more powerful and much more faceless overlords. No, the people of Syria must win their freedom and their right to a voice without western tanks and marines rolling and strolling down the streets of Aleppo and Damascus.

So if there can be no invasion, what aid could be offered in order to strengthen the Syrian rebel cause and give it a fighting chance?

C) A possible resolution

Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN envoy, said according to the article in the feedback this debate was provided with, that “arming the rebels is not the way to end the conflict. Pouring more arms to the opposition would bring more arms to the government and that will not solve the problem.” He furthermore “urged the international community to increase diplomatic pressure on the regime.”

Well, with all due respect, I beg to differ with the opinion of the honoured envoy-which couldn’t be different anyway, him being a UN envoy and the UN being an organisation striving first and foremost towards international peace (not daring to interfere with conflicts, even if sometimes it was and is the right thing to do, and certainly not daring to disturb much the global balance of power). If the Western countries, which have a vast surplus of sophisticated arms due to their bustling war arming industries (and they are, anyway, actively engaged in arms dealing being the most ardent suppliers), do provide arms for the rebels, no one can risk reinforcing the regime’s armoury without risking diplomatic isolation and world-wide popular clamour as well. We should provide for the Rebels means enough to keep themselves alive and leave to them their manoeuvres and strategies on how to win their war. Still, that would imply a certain level of the unwanted commitment described in the above part but, on one hand, it is much less imposing than tank columns, heavy artillery pieces, Navy Seals,S.A.S. commandos and ultra-modern aircraft and helicopters, and on the other had, the Rebels need all the help they can get, and no aid comes without its price.

I agree with the envoy though, that the international community should increase the pressure on the regime-the sooner the war ends the better. There are only two facts that make this avenue not particularly practically feasible for the time being:
1) The regime seems to enjoy the unofficial support of the eastern powers-nameless the Chinese and Russian governments (Anastacia is surely more informed than me on the matter, so I will leave any more feedback on that subject at her care). So any diplomatic efforts of Western countries, especially via the UN, that would suggest that the regime step down, do not present the potential of being fruitful any time soon.
2)The regime itself is unlikely to give in to external pressure, especially if it is that weak, when its place is not immediately threatened. It’s not like the Rebels are on their final march on Damascus and the moment, the government position is still strong, its army is the most powerful, and as long as there is a good chance that they are going to emerge from this war as victors, they will continue to fight until either them or the Rebels are completely annihilated.

Still, one couldn’t possibly stop trying. The fate of an entire people is on the balance. Let us do what we can, within the reasonable limits of our power-or whatever of it is left anyway.

Thank you for reading my humble opinion and I am sorry if I was a little tiresome or boring.

P.S. Please do not e-mail me, chances are I won’t read your e-mail. It is better to answer here if you wish, both for my sake, and for yours, and for the sake of this debate. Thank you again.