Arab League calls for an arab/UN peacekeeping force

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At this point, the UN is configured for a mission like Syria, the concept of peacekeeping where troops in Blue Berets stand bravely in the line of fire to protect civillians is foolish.

Make no mistake, if you put troops on the ground in Syria its an offensive mission to remove Assad's ability to make war on his people. You need massive amounts of ground forces, you need highly mobile armor units that can take the capital city, you need massive airpower to knock out Syrian armour and artillary sites.

Libya was a cake walk compared to what's happening here. Ghadaffi did not have a strong military at the time, and the opposition was fairly strong and benefitted from members of the military joining their cause in unit size. That's not happening in Syria where the opposition is on the verge of being exterminated.

And I can guarantee if the UN was to put the force on the ground that it need to do this mission, they're going to be viewed as conquerors rather then liberators and they're going to end up fighting not only the Assad government, but extremists on the other side.

Its more of a mission that is configured for a Nato force then a UN force.

I very much doubt that America wants to commit ground forces especially with the need to rest and rearm their military. I doubt that America wants to be caught in another 5 year tar baby engagement.

Canada just doesn't have anythng left to give, the Army needs a significant amount of time to rest retrain and repurchase equipment worn out in Afghanistan.

On top of that, if you look at the map Syria is bordered by Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon. Turkey might allow aircraft, but I doubt that they can politically allow UN troops to mass in Turkey for a cross border invasion. In Iraq your dealing with a new insurgency that started after America left, you'd probably get attacked and suicide bombed in Iraq, Lebanon is not a friendly nation especially with Hezbollah there. Plus Iran would squeal if 5000 Western troops for example were suddenly staged in the middle east.

I think your only option would be a sea bourne amphib assault, and the only nation capable of doing that in numbers would be the U.S. who would then have to bear the brunt on the early casualties to establish a beach head with supply lines for other UN countries to fly in troops and supplies.

And amphib assaults are always bloody, is the american public willing to watch their boys die in numbers again so quickly?

Why don't you think Turkey would allow UN forces to mass inside their borders? If there is any type of UN action, you can bet on Turkey being a leading force behind it. They've beat the war drums since the beginning of this thing, probably more vocally than any other nation has.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't know if I would want to see anyone put boots on the ground in Syria right now, I don't know if I would want to see an air strike campaign against Syria right now.

With the inflammed emotions in the region especially with Iran who would see this as a direct threat to them and one of their closest allies.

I feel bad for the people that are dying over this, but I think a UN force would be caught in the middle and cut to pieces. A NATO mission would bring up accusations of American imperialism.

I think that we have to hope that the pressure from other Arab states eventually causes that government to fall, which is something that Iran would not want to see.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Why don't you think Turkey would allow UN forces to mass inside their borders? If there is any type of UN action, you can bet on Turkey being a leading force behind it. They've beat the war drums since the beginning of this thing, probably more vocally than any other nation has.

I think it depends on the makeup of any UN peacekeeping force.

I also don't think that the UN would be the most efficient body unless they're willing to literally make war on the Syrian government, which the UN without NATO aid would be incapable of.

You have the ultimate catch .22, in order to be successful in Syria you would need NATO troops and weapons or Russian/Chinese troops and weapons.

Turkey probably wouldn't be escatatic over the basing of Western based ground troops within their borders launching attacks into another Arab nation.

I'm just flailing in the dark though.

To be honest, I think that the more effective thing would be a full Arab leaugue operation, but that might send the wrong message to Iran.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Policy of appeasement. Pretty much ignore the problem and it will go away. History proved that that was a failed policy.

Those are two different things.

[Ozy_Flame]

Without resorting to military action, I think our biggest weapon would be the use of the Arab League to control the situation. The only way action can be taken and save face at the same time is if the Arab League is involved or at least leads the charge. However, I do think Turkey should be held in a limited capacity for response leadership. Too many border issues to be a rational leader for something like a coordinated response.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by nik-

Those are two different things.

It's not exactly the same, I know, but it's similar. If a policy of ignoring the problem and, in turn, just letting the Assad regime do what they want to do in order to avoid war and military engagement is the order of the day, then appeasement is what it is. Russia and China are also engaging in this as we speak - let the Assad regime find a way to deal with the situation, which hasn't worked at all so far.

"Engagement," although limited, is inevitable for the West - whether through the Arab League or directly.

Libya was not appeasement; and in retrospect, I would argue that engagement was a successful policy for regime change in that country which is a similar situation to Syria.

[nik-]

One is rewarding the problem and one is ignoring, they're pretty different.

I just think that maybe this region needs to learn a lesson, you can't just #### on a way of life and expect the countries who live that way of life to come rushing to help you. Not going in for Darfur was a mistake, this is something that these Arab countries should fix on their own since we're all the devil.

edit: I realize "learn a lesson" sounds pretty harsh and cold. It's not the citizen's who are revolting fault, but it makes no difference. We can't nation build over there because they don't accept it.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by nik-

One is rewarding the problem and one is ignoring, they're pretty different.

I would argue that the veto of the UN Resolution on Syria by Russia and China is a policy of appeasement, in that Syrian sympathizers gave Syria more time to get their house in order. In other words, Syria was rewarded with more time to oppress its own people. That, in itself, is a reward.

The West is trying to avoid this scenario. Russia and China are for it. So while it might be nice to ignore the problem, the West certainly doesn't see it that way. Nor should they.

[undercoverbrother]

Does anyone really believe peacekeeping works?

I struggle to find an example of peacekeeping that works/worked.

[Ozy_Flame]

Suez Canal crisis in 1956. Lester Pearson won a Nobel Prize for this Canadian-born peace plan.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Suez Canal crisis in 1956. Lester Pearson won a Nobel Prize for this Canadian-born peace plan.

that's one, and you were dealing with two European powers.....

anymore?

[Ozy_Flame]

Nope that's it

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Nope that's it

exactly, perhaps that is the exception that proves the rule, it does not work.

[Ozy_Flame]

Well there is a few smaller ones. The Renamo rebels in Mozambique were successful disarmed and brought in again as a political party, with UN peacekeeping being in the middle of that. The handover of power in Liberia from Charles Taylor to Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in 2005 could be considered another one.

I guess the definition of "success" is debatable though.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Without resorting to military action, I think our biggest weapon would be the use of the Arab League to control the situation. The only way action can be taken and save face at the same time is if the Arab League is involved or at least leads the charge. However, I do think Turkey should be held in a limited capacity for response leadership. Too many border issues to be a rational leader for something like a coordinated response.

I don't get why they don't (maybe they are) encourage the Arab nations to pour military supplies into the rebels hands. Sounds also like the rebels are not well organized. Surely they could have some ex-military types somehow end up in Turkey who just happen to give them a helping hand strategy wise. They seem to be congregating in specific areas and allowing them to be hit by large forces. You would think they would be better served by a coordinated series of hit and run attacks.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

that's one, and you were dealing with two European powers.....

anymore?

You're right, lets just stop trying.

[mikey_the_redneck]

I see the western media has once again fooled the masses into believing the Syrian problem is a one sided affair.

What is going on in Syria, is a western destabilization program to bring about regime change in Syria. Syrians don't want foreign intervention, ...they saw what happened in Libya.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

i see the western media has once again fooled the masses into believing the syrian problem is a one sided affair.

What is going on in syria, is a western destabilization program to bring about regime change in syria. Syrians don't want foreign intervention, ...they saw what happened in libya.

oh.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I see the western media has once again fooled the masses into believing the Syrian problem is a one sided affair.

What is going on in Syria, is a western destabilization program to bring about regime change in Syria. Syrians don't want foreign intervention, ...they saw what happened in Libya.

[mikey_the_redneck]

^^Ignorant fool is ignorant.