Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING in Syria: Assad asylum offers pour in as he is reported loading sarin gas into bombs (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would oppose NATO involvement; UN is (0+ / 0-)

    much more appropriate here as I don't see for the life of me how this is a threat to the North Atlantic, and Turkey is clearly capable of defending themselves.

    •  GoGo - the UN is incapable (0+ / 0-)

      of launching any rapid military action. It isn't a viable option.

      There are some who say that the UN couldn't stop a cookie fight at a Brownie Scouts meeting, but I think that is a slight overstatement.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 07:40:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not NATO's problem; fix the UN then. nt (0+ / 0-)
        •  GoGo - the UN isn't fixable (0+ / 0-)

          The UN, and nearly all it's members, have no interest in or stomach for actual military action where people are in harms way and are killed or injured.

          NATO, for all it's faults, is the only multinational military coalition who can rapidly deploy air, land and naval forces in Europe, Northern Africa or the Middle East. It's NATO or nobody.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:19:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Turkey is a NATO member (0+ / 0-)

      It should not therefore be difficult to see how this involves NATO.

      •  I can see how without endorsing it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I specifically noted that Turkey was involved when I wrote that Turkey can protect itself. I'm pretty sure NATO wouldn't need to get involved if Mexico attacked us.

        •  But all it takes is for Turkey to think so (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If Turkey invokes Article V (or whatever) her allies are treaty-bound to come to help. If I were Turkey, I would want some ROI from the alliance I'd supported over decades. They Syrian military is orders of magnitude better armed and experienced in war than is Mexico.

          Plus with Syria being a former French proctorate they feel some obligation to get involved. That's another attractor which draws in NATO.

          What I am getting at, is that it is unrealistic to expect NATO to remain un-involved if this conflict starts drawing in foreign intervention. This is taking place on NATO's border after all.

          •  Bleh, didn't know about Article V. nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
          •  Arm the FSA (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            You shouldn't take all this literally: these exchanges are diplomatic manoeuvres intended to apply pressure on Assad, and to limit his range of actions; possibly to nudge the Russians into facing the fact that if they don't cooperate in reigning Assad in the situation could explode beyond their control. Both Article V of the NATO treaty (which applies only  in the event of an "armed attack against" a member) and the issue of chemical weapons could be could be used as pretexts for intervention of some sort (a "no fly zone" doesn't seem to fit the bill if either of these is the grounds for intervention). But as others have said, my concern would be that the real objective is be to bring the Syrian situation under US/western control.  Why not just provide the FSA with the weaponry needed  to counter Assad's airpower? They are already 75% there - give them the equipment to finish the job and all these problems are resolved in one stroke.

            •  All these problems are resolved in one stroke (0+ / 0-)

              I haven't heard that one applied to the Mideast before. Were it only so.

              That aside I agree with you about the maneuvering and such. The goal is to get Assad to conclude his life in exile will be happier and longer than his life as Syrian strongman. However I was aiming at the smaller point that it is unrealistic to think NATO can remain a non-player in Syria.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site