Syria megathread- is British government desperate for another war?

[Mecky]

Loob Cameron wants, to bomb Syria end of. Public pressure, Miliband and now Putin have stopped him thus far and for the last few weeks Cameron and the rightwing media have tried to influence public into getting what they want. In addition, Cameron also has eyes on the 2015 election, best not go upsetting voters

[L00b]

Loob Cameron wants, to bomb Syria end of.

Does he? Why?

 

I've explained the reasoning behind my opinion.

 

I think it's fair to ask for yours, rather than accept your bare assertion.

[Mecky]

Does he? Why?

 

I've explained the reasoning behind my opinion.

 

I think it's fair to ask for yours, rather than accept your bare assertion.

 

I don't know why, he just does. There's probably a number of reasons but we probably wouldn't find out why. Cameron shouldn't be given any credit, he is only interested in self preservation

[Xt500]

It wouldnt supprise me if it wasnt the Americans that released the stuff so that they can get in and get control of the oil.

 

Its the same patter we have seen in Iraq,lybia and now syria.

 

Funny isnt it that all these countries needed a new leader when they are oil rich yet we know mugabe has killed far more yet he still rules.He wouldnt if he had oil though would he?

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2013 at 11:09 ----------

 

the whole lot is just a made up farce as see through as a window!

[alchresearch]

I don't know why, he just does. There's probably a number of reasons but we probably wouldn't find out why. Cameron shouldn't be given any credit, he is only interested in self preservation

 

Same applies to you and your fact-less posts.

[L00b]

I don't know why, he just does.

Right, so your comment was just based on antipathy and irrational.

 

As I thought, so I shall ignore it studiously.

[Mecky]

Right, so your comment was just based on antipathy and irrational.

 

As I thought, so I shall ignore it studiously.

 

No, it's because he was disappointed and spat his dummy out when he was out voted. Now he is looking for a way to do what he wants and get away with it without any cost to himself or the tories in the run-up to the 2015 election. As to the reasons why he want's to go into Syria, most of us, even the media can only speculate and it's unlikely we'll ever know the real reasons.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Mecky

[I1L2T3]

Like the Cons or loathe them, Cameron maoeuvered masterfully on this one, the opposition walked right into the Conservatives' voting trap. I still don't particularly like the guy, but am slowly gaining a healthy dose of respect for his political instinct and moves, here and at the EU level.

 

Cameron knew fully well that he'd lose the Commons vote if he refused Labour's amendment, and my guess is that -for all the rethoric- he did not actually want to comit the UK to the strikes as his advisers will have been perfectly aware of the lack of public support for same...so guess what he did? Refused the amendment, so the vote ended up 'no strikes' and the opposition end up being the baddies condoning Assad's baby-gassing tactics.

 

Witness Cameron and Hague consistently and very insistently refusing to entertain even the mere thought of a 2nd vote about the strikes, when the opposition started suggesting the possibility of a 2nd vote a day or two after: as soon as a journalist or another would ask Cameron or Hague, it was a knee-jerk "no, no ,no, British public has spoken, Parliament has made decision, there will not be a 2nd vote".

 

So contrary to the earlier kick-Assad-in-the-nuts rethoric, that's what very clearly tells me that the vote-losing has been deliberate.

 

Hollande is desperate to shift France's attention away from domestic issues and to start "making a name" for himself. He's currently considered the most useless, softest/wettest presidential lettuce leaf ever by a majority of the public opinion (I'll still have a bet that he won't finish his mandate, btw). There isn't any more public support in France than in the UK for battering down Assad's door, France has also had its share of caskets inbound from the 'Stan.

 

It took the EU about a decade, if not longer (can't remember exactly), to eventually organise a 'proper' decommissioning procedure and location for the chemical share of Western Europe's iron harvest.

 

There was certainly still none in 1997, when I did my national service, as gas shells were still being simply stockpiled in the meantime (the EU had outlawed their controlled disposal at sea first, then sat on its proverbial about an alternative for donkey's years).

 

Blimey Loon, that I'd just about the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted. Cameron did not deliberately lose that vote. No way. He's been humiliated on the world stage because of it. That is not his style. Although to give him credit the way he reacted to the loss in public was very dignified.

[L00b]

Blimey Loon, that I'd just about the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted. Cameron did not deliberately lose that vote. No way. He's been humiliated on the world stage because of it. That is not his style. Although to give him credit the way he reacted to the loss in public was very dignified.

Riiight, my alphanumerical friend...So, is it your contention that Cameron was not aware that, with a working majority of 77 and, out of that, an estimated 50 to 60 'no strike-voting' rebel MPs before the vote, refusing the labour amendment (thus failing to get any opposition votes on-side) would most likely result in a loss?

 

If you’d listened to Ed Miliband yesterday afternoon, you might have been forgiven for thinking that he was quite likely to support the government’s motion on Syria, so long as it was and ‘legal’ and had specific and limited aims.

 

But he didn’t even bother waiting for the government to publish its motion before he announced his party would amend it, demanding that Parliament only vote on military intervention once the UN weapons inspectors had reported.

 

This wouldn’t have mattered so much had the Coalition been able to rely on rock-solid support from its own MPs. But that low-key whipping operation I reported on earlier managed to find enough discontent and fear about the consequences of military intervention among MPs that the Prime Minister was advised that between 50 and 60 MPs might rebel. Given the government’s working majority is 77, and given the difficulty of twisting the arms of MPs who are firstly not yet in Parliament and secondly more likely to want to vote with their consciences – even under a three line whip – it was clear that this could have led to a defeat. And that would have been unbearable for the Prime Minister. So he had to retreat.

(source)

 

Nice spotting the tree, I1L2T3. The forest is that away >>>

 

Oh, and your bias is showing again. A bit.

Edited September 13, 2013 by L00b

[XXTickerXX]

An excellent post from Reddit...

I've been reading through these comments, and I don't think any of them strike at the truth of the matter. I apologize if this seems blunt. Hereafter I will provide a detailed examination of US interest in Syria.

 

Realpolitik

 

refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism.

 

Chemical weapons aren't why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually been interested in helping the Syrian rebels for a long time. That last link is from the past few days, but they're all connected, which I'll get to.

 

The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers.

 

So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik.

 

Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region.

 

Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite, which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.

 

Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good terms. In 2006, Israel got into a short war with its other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, during which time Syria threatened to join the war on Lebanon's side. Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall. As the US is an ally of Israel and Israel in turn provides an ally to us in the region, it's in our interest to help Israel's interest.

 

Looking more broadly, there are regional issues. As I mentioned earlier, Syria's government is Shiite, while the majority of the Middle East is Sunni. Another element is that the majority of Syria is also Sunni; the Shiites comprise 10-20% of Syria's population, while Sunnis are 60-70%. However, Bashar al-Assad and his father before him (also a dictator) are Alawite Shiites, and so Shiites have reigned supreme in Syria, building up resentment among the Sunni citizens because of decades-long minority rule by a group that the Sunnis consider to be heretical. This tension in the Middle East as a whole, Sunni vs. Shia, and in the country of Syria specifically, have provided sectarian lines for the population to divide themselves among. And because people in other countries want to see their particular side win, this means that foreign-based sectarian groups have rushed to help their side win the war, making it a regional proxy for the division between Sunni and Shia. Those groups, by the way, include Hezbollah, a Shia paramilitary group who has long been an enemy of Israel, as well as the Al-Nusra Front, a Sunni Islamist paramilitary group who are associates of Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this situation could easily cross borders outside of Syria and develop into a regional war. Since the US depends on the Middle East for oil, this would obviously be a bad situation for the US.

 

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! And as always, it involves oil (and natural gas).

 

Qatar, a small country next to Saudi Arabia, (and coincidentally a good US ally) sought a few years ago to build a natural gas pipeline from itself up to Turkey, and from there on to Europe. Turkey (also a good US ally) was also interested in this deal, as it would make Turkey a key player in Europe's energy sector by being the transit conduit for a large component of Europe's oil and gas, which would go through the proposed Nabucco pipeline connecting Turkey to Europe. However, this all fell through. Instead, Iran, Iraq, and Syria came to a deal to transport gas from the South Pars gas field in Iran through Iraq and then to port in Syria, from where it could be sold to Europe, bypassing Turkey. The kicker? The South Pars gas field is shared between Iran and Qatar, so if Iran got a pipeline in place first, there would be no need for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey, meaning both Qatar and Turkey don't get the money and influence they desire. So, obviously, Turkey and Qatar are interested in seeing the Syrian government change its mind, and unsurprisingly, have both condemned the Syrian government and encouraged support for the rebels. So, being that Turkey and Qatar are both allies of the US, it is once again in US interests to help their allies. But the US is interested in the Turkish-Qatari gas line for an entirely separate reason as well.

 

Russia is a big natural gas exporter. In fact, they supply much of Europe with its natural gas, to the point where they are a monopoly in most Eastern European countries, and double-digit percentages to France, Germany, and Italy. This dominance has also given them monopoly-pricing, which has caused friction between Russia and other European countries. In 2009, this got so bad that Russia cut all gas deliveries to Europe for 13 days, creating an energy crisis in Europe that was only resolved after Ukraine (the main country Russia's pipelines go through) basically folded to Russian demands. Now, this is obviously terrible for our European allies, as they have little or no options when it comes to Russia's demands. So, Europe has been trying to diversify its natural gas suppliers. Unfortunately, it has not done so successfully so far. Guess who was one potential supplier? That pipeline from Turkey. Europe badly needs another supplier of gas, though, so they'd likely be willing to accept gas from the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline even though that would involve buying gas from Iran, helping its economy. This is bad for the US, precisely because we sought economic sanctions on Iran to stop Europe from buying oil and helping its economy. So, once again it is in the United States' interest for Syria to change its mind on the pipelines. Additionally, since Russia is a rival, reducing its control over European energy markets is a strategic goal for the US in and of itself, so helping our European counterparts also helps us. Helping them, of course, means overthrowing the Syrian government.

 

Tl;dr The US has strategic and geopolitical reasons for needing to overthrow the Syrian government. Inevitably, this also includes trade deals regarding oil.

As has been mentioned repeatedly, Iraq is also a Shia majority country. Its government is a coalition government which includes Shia in the governing power. Bahrain is also likely a Shia majority country. Finally, Azerbaijan is a Shia majority country, although it depends on how you define the Middle East as to whether it is a Middle Eastern Shia majority country.

 

Additionally, the Middle East is not an absolute majority on US oil imports; according to recent figures, OPEC is actually a plurality of around 40%, with Middle Eastern countries of OPEC accounting for 21% of imports, and Canada accounting for about 30% of US imports. This is because of the rise in oil production in Canada owing, in part at least, to the Alberta Tar Sands, which have brought a lot of jobs as well as controversy to the Alberta province. If you want to know more about this, there is probably a post on it over at /r/canada or /r/canadapolitics.

 

Lastly, there is some discussion as to whether Israel really wants the Syrian government, and al-Assad specifically, to fall. Several posters suggest that Israel would rather al-Assad stay in place because he's the 'devil we know' for Israel. That being the case, Israel may not be interested in regime change so much as stopping conflict from crossing over their northern border.