I think the situation has evolved into something so political and complex that ethical questions no longer apply. Originally, the ethical solution would be to support a peaceful, progressive, solution between the Arab Spring protesters and Assad. But the Western "playbook", is to back whoever is most likely to win, as the most efficient way to end up friends of whoever is on charge. The West decided impoverished dictatorships couldn't survive a populist revolution and backed "rebels", but things immediately got really, really, complicated. It quickly turned from populist uprising to proxy war between superpowers and local power centers. Now it is impossible to back any side without supporting one's "enemies". All the ethical questions are just propaganda designed to sway the folks back home to support the the supervillian of the week, and even that failed spectacularly. The only thing the west has been able to maintain so far is enough deniability to avoid charges of outright treason, (unintentionally supporting the enemy at a time of "war"). Now nobody can change direction without it becoming an outright "world war", or back out without losing their place at the table. Even a peaceful resolution seems to be no longer feasible. Most likely this is going to be long and drawn-out conflict ending up in a stalemate.

The Assad regime is supported, and dictatorships are allowed to govern the Middle East, being the only form of government that works in those regions and can assure stability. The US and Russia shake hands over Syria in order to eliminate ISIS.

Everyone stands aside - doesn't sound plausible, nor will this guarantee the destruction of ISIS, which is a priority for the West.
Everyone joins and backs the most progressive opposition in Syria - just look what happened to Iraq when we tried to install a democracy
The Assad regime is destroyed - and replaced with what?? The area still needs a dictatorship, doesn't matter what its name is.

All of your options are already happening, BC. The international community has for quite some time, a part from air and drone strikes, let the Syrians fight it out. We have backed the alleged moderate opposition. We know and claim that the Assad regime needs to be destroyed. Finally, because he is fighting IS, we have also indirectly supported him.

The time for humanitarian and military intervention, which I would have supported, has probably passed by now. My recent worry is that, in light of the mass exodus of ordinary Syrians from their country, there are not really any moderates left in the country, which has become a killing ground waged by various terrorist factions.

I clicked on the "post your own solution" option. My solution has several parts: 1) help the Kurds and Iraqis militarily, i.e. give them more coordinated airstrikes, intelligence, as well as armaments and supplies, and 2) force Turkey, through sanctions of various kinds, to stop funneling IS fighters into Syria and to engage IS militarily along its border, and 3) force the Gulf Arab states, again through various sanctions to a) more seriously engage IS militarily than they have done and b) to accept the refugees from Syria which Europe cannot and should not accept right now.

being the only form of government that works in those regions and can assure stability. — Agustino

BS. Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and now Iraq beg to differ, and the Arab Spring shows that there is a popular groundswell of anti-authoritarian sentiment throughout the Middle East. Iran also recently elected a pretty reformist president. More than 5% of Saudi Arabians are alleged to be atheists, too, for example, a number that is probably even higher in reality. And this is despite living in one of the most brutally repressive theocratic regimes on the planet, in which atheism was recently declared to be a crime.

The Assad regime is destroyed - and replaced with what?? — Agustino

A liberal democracy.

True enough, the options proposed are options in action. BUT... what about an ethical judgement?

My own sense is that we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. Not just the US. There are no ethical alternatives BECAUSE

An ethical action would demand a "good outcome".
An ethical action would require the "means" to achieve the intended good outcome.
An ethical action can't have overwhelmingly undesirable consequences.
An ethical action has to have a long term future.

What was wrong with our two wars in Iraq and one in Afghanistan was that:

An ethical outcome wasn't defined. We were there for... "something" but what, exactly, escaped me -- many others as well.
If we had an ethical objective, we didn't have (or employ) the means to achieve the intended outcome.
In both cases -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and Syria as a present and future case, "effective means" will have very undesirable consequences.
We don't have a clearly defined outcome, means, or way of avoiding highly undesirable consequences.

We could, as somebody suggested, carpet bomb Syria back into the stone age. Or we could just use small nukes (neutron bombs, for instance, and tactical nukes) and eliminate large blocks of both territory and population, including Assad and his group. We could invade, using a huge drafted army, occupy Syria (and while we're at it, whatever else needs a good jerking around) en masse and force them at the point of the gun to rearrange their society.

From what I've seen, a good share of Syria has already been bombed pretty thoroughly. Nukes -- well, there is that small problem of World War IV which would be fought with rocks. Using nukes would probably result in everybody being bombed back to the stone age. We probably won't draft another army for anything except actual self defense, since a draft and a couple of million men and women serving in the dried out Middle East would probably start riots here. The "all-volunteer army" avoids mass opposition.

And no matter what course we took, the background assumption is that we would know how to bring about a long term positive outcome that everybody would be happy with. We know no such thing, as we so vividly demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. We smashed Humpty Dumpty and we couldn't put it back together again.

What would help Tunisia or Lebanon, for instance, is economic vitality. A liberal democracy requires a minimal level of prosperity (seems to anyway). People behave better when there is enough food, clothing, shelter, and cultural goods to go around. Economic assistance is something we could do ethically (we could find a way of doing it unethically, of course). We spend generously for military solutions and spend niggardly when it comes to civil society and trade building. We are one of the least generous western countries for foreign aid.

Economic assistance isn't a guarantee that all will be well forever, but it beats bombing the shit out of people.

Agreed. There are some bad actors in the middle east who are high on our list of allies. Saudi Arabia is, IMHO, a lot more trouble than they are worth. So are some of the other sheikvilles over there. Turkey is playing a double game, and should stop it immediately. We should be doing a lot more for the Kurds.

An ethical action would demand a "good outcome". — Bitter Crank

I disagree. Actions are determined to be moral based on the motives of the agent, which also happens to be the de facto operating principle of most criminal justice systems in the world today. This does not, however, absolve the agent, whether an individual or a country, from responsibility for the consequences of their actions, even if their motives were pure. It simply means they cannot be held morally responsible; but legally, prudentially, economically, etc, they certainly can and should be.

An ethical outcome wasn't defined. — Bitter Crank

I think implementing democracy is an ethical outcome. As for whether that was clearly defined, I don't know. Perhaps not.

We know no such thing, as we so vividly demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. We smashed Humpty Dumpty and we couldn't put it back together again. — Bitter Crank

I completely disagree here. In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban, and in the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, had already thoroughly smashed their countries and every semblance of civil society to bits. What the US and the international community tried to do, and are still trying and ought to still try to do, is put these countries back together again so as to prevent their future collapse into barbarism. This entails building a democracy and rebuilding civil society, a rule of law, etc.

I'm always in favor of liberal democracy, but how?

Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and now Iraq — Thorongil

Turkey is a quasi religious dictatorship under Erdogan. Lebanon is internally unstable. Israel is a Western state. Iraq is terribly unstable and violent, and the government can do nothing to prevent oppressive regimes from coming to power (like ISIS). The Middle East can only be governed by the fist as its past history shows.

Who runs Syria is none of 'our' business. Massive humanitarian aid to neighbouring countries, a welcome to refugees and the services of skilful diplomats to bring warring factions to the table - thats what this mysterious 'we' could do.

Your judgments are far too premature. None of these states have been in existence for longer than a few decades at most. Western democracies are well over 200 years old, and were never perfect then as now, though they have made vast improvements, such as abolishing the slave trade.

Massive humanitarian aid to neighbouring countries, a welcome to refugees and the services of skilful diplomats to bring warring factions to the table - thats what this mysterious 'we' could do. — mcdoodle

Syria's neighbors really ought to be doing these things, but they leave it to the West and then blame the West when things don't turn out right. How many refugees and how much humanitarian aid have the Emirates, Saudis, and Turks accepted and given respectively compared to Europe? A pittance, that's what. It's amazing how little these theocratic and otherwise Muslim majority states seem to regard their fellow Muslims in the region who are being butchered and forced to flee.

Your judgments are far too premature. None of these states have been in existence for longer than a few decades at most. Western democracies are well over 200 years old, and were never perfect then as now, though they have made vast improvements, such as abolishing the slave trade. — Thorongil

Again - I fail to see on what your assumption that all regions of the world can be governed reliably through democratic means rests on, except on the fact that the West is governed so. Maybe there are some regions where people simply cannot accept such governments.

Again - I fail to see on what your assumption that all regions of the world can be governed reliably through democratic means rests on, except on the fact that the West is governed so. — Agustino

Humans are not so different from each other in the essentials. I feel the burden of proof rests with you to show that there are some people for whom democracy cannot ever be accepted. Science has thoroughly repudiated biological notions of race, so there is no natural, and therefore no necessary, reason why some humans might be incapable of democratic governance. What prevents some of them from doing so at this moment in time are the artificial and contingent factors of culture and religion.

I view those policies unethical which simply will not work or will be counterproductive and do worse damage to the crisis, but for the totally ignorant person seem "ethical". Those policies that can work and help bring the war to a close are far more ethical than hypocrite ramblings that have no connection to reality. These kind of policies that seem to be ethical, just and reasonable, yet which are basically made to woo positive feelings in the domestic political arena of other countries and/or sound ethical in the international forum can be counterproductive and hence actually unethical. The ethical aspect of a policy ought to be judged from the results of the policy, not how the policy seems to look like.

During the Cold War my country, Finland, would follow utter a mantra when it had to say something about some conflict: "We urge all sides to abstain from violence and solve the problems at hand peacefully". Oh yeah, that's obviously how civil wars have ended: by everybody else hoping that the sides will come to their senses. The actual intrepretation of this mantra would be: "We actually don't give a damn."

Now not giving a damn isn't going to be so bad as simply making things worse as the US is now doing. The present US policy is simply illogical, counterproductive and has no chance of working, yet it surely sounds ethical as it opposes ISIS and opposes other Islamist groups and opposes the Assad regime and favours a democratic multicultural Syria. Yeah, great! It's actually a question of what the US policy actually is?

First the illogical part:

The US wants Assad to be overthrown, but doesn't want the regime to fall into chaos like Libya or for the Islamists to take over. ISIS is a bigger threat to the US, which also Iran, Russia and the Assad regime oppose (even if they concentrate on the other insurgents, which makes sense for them now). With Russia and Iran supporting Assad, there is no chance of anymore attacking Assad. Hence the US isn't bombing Assad. But it is bombing some of those factions who oppose Assad. So Assad is a de facto ally, yet not an ally. And naturally for the US the Muslim Brotherhood isn't a group it could promote. No, the US puts hopes on some Western educated progressive liberals that have been outside of Syria, just like in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq. Too bad that actually these progressives didn't have anything to do with actual politics in the countries themselves, but they could talk the right talk to US officials in Washington. Now Iraq is closely controlled by Iran.

Then the counterproductive part:

This can be seen from the utter and total failure of the US policy to create a "Syrian moderate force" to fight ISIS, but not the Assad-regime in Syria. The objective was first to create a militia of 13 000 men. Then it was dropped to 5 000 men. Actually 120 men were trained. About 50 were sent into Syria. From these about 5 to 4 (by CENTCOM commanders estimate) are now operating in Syria. This has cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hence that the US didn't move at all against the Assad regime simply has meant that the vast majority of Syrians, the Sunni's, are very dissappointed at the US. Then when the objective is to bomb everything in ISIS controlled areas (where there are no ground troops to actual discover the true targets), it brings even more misery to the people stranded there in ISIS controlled areas. And those factions that could overthrow the Assad regime are considered themselves a threat, possible Jihadists, hence there is no chance for the US to create a force that could overthrow the Assad regime ...especially after Russia has taken to the role to help Assad.

When the demonstrations started, they indeed were against a the despotic Assad regime and people genuinly asked for democracy and something else. But now the old flag of Syria has been replaced by the black flags of the Islamists. Insisting that those who would topple Assad would somehow be those progressive liberals sharing similar visions as Americans simply puts US policy into it's own La-La-land.

What's going to happen?

What is likely to happen to Syria is that it's on the road to have a similar extremely bloody civil war as in Lebanon. In that case too the reason was that a minority (in Lebanon the Maronite Christians) tried to hold to their dominant position on power. Only after huge carnage the sides made peace, but the country still is on the brink of being a failed state.

Hence the truly ethical policy would be a policy that would be realistic and that of minimizing the bloodshed. So have a cease-fire. Have at first the country be split, but still talk about it as a federation. Destroy ISIS by supporting the Kurds and the other insurgents, because these violent loonies will not otherwise stop. The longer the IS survives, the more stronger it will get. You cannot do anymore anything on Assad, because you have Putin there... and face WW3 if you start attacking Assad.

In Canada, we're bringing in the refugees, 25,000 by the end of February. We're also supporting the Kurdish militias in Iraq who - as I understand it - are driving ISIL out of territory that is nominally under Kurdish control. This seems reasonable to me. This is a situation where it pays to be a relatively minor military power, because the big picture is so muddled. The biggest problems for the American-led coalition seem to be in finding non-radicalized Sunni militias to fight for and occupy Sunni territories in both Iraq and Syria, the Russian/Iran/Hezbollah/Shia militia alliance supporting Assad, and the double-dealing Turks.

I have to chuckle at Hillary's idea of a no-fly zone; is she ready for a confrontation with the Russians? The U.S. refusal to take refugees is shameful.

What prevents some of them from doing so at this moment in time are the artificial and contingent factors of culture and religion. — Thorongil

Yes but these factors are so entrenched that they cannot be changed, except over very long time, by allowing the process of transition from dictatorship towards more democratic societies to happen.

Not necessarily. France went from being an absolute theocratic monarchy to a secular democratic state, almost over night. No one really expected in 1788 that this would happen just a year later, just as very few people in 1988 living in the Soviet Bloc expected or predicted the utter collapse of Soviet rule over the next few years.

No ordinary person expected in 1788 that this would happen just a year later, just as very few people in 1988 living in the Soviet Bloc expected or predicted the utter collapse of Soviet rule over the next few years. — Thorongil

This is factually wrong, which is all I'll say here. I come from one of those countries - the collapse of the Soviet Bloc was imminent and predictable - if not from the outside, then certainly from the inside.

Also - some of those countries are still governed by "fake" democracies - because people cannot accept a democracy.

In Canada, we're bringing in the refugees, 25,000 by the end of February. — photographer

Here in Finland with 5,4 million people, we have had about 10 000 refugees coming here. And that's a small number... by European standards. Hence the refugee crisis is real... and actually a part of the Assad strategy in the war.

We're also supporting the Kurdish militias in Iraq who - as I understand it - are driving ISIL out of territory that is nominally under Kurdish control. — photographer

Actually my country is doing this also. But what's the end game? Even if the total-disaster Maliki is out, still the Iranian controlled Shiite militias are carrying out their version of ethnic cleansing in Sunni areas in Iraq. The problem is that there isn't any reasonable outcome for Sunni's in Iraq. And are Kurds getting their own country? Of course not.

I have to chuckle at Hillary's idea of a no-fly zone; is she ready for a confrontation with the Russians? The U.S. refusal to take refugees is shameful. — photographer

Likely Hillary will drop the nonsensical idea when she is the President. And actually even more shameful is that Saudi-Arabia isn't taking any either. The Saudi's apparently fear that the Syrians would create problems in their dictatorship.

And then there is the quagmire in Yemen, which has turned into a Vietnam for Saudi Arabia. Interesting to see the destroyed columns of American produced Abrams tanks and Bradley vehicles there.

(Iranian (?) newsreporter in front of a destroyed Saudi Abrams tank)

You're going to have to specify in what sense it was, for I think the consensus is that it was on the whole unexpected. There is always a certain segment of the population who believes the current power structures are about to face imminent collapse. I'm sure many Russian people thought so throughout the Soviet Union's history. However, I'm speaking about the vast majority of the population, who lived under the watchful eye of the KGB and other seemingly ever present and ineradicable institutions of the state.

You're going to have to specify in what sense it was, for I think the consensus is that it was on the whole unexpected. — Thorongil

I've updated my post. Do you think Thorongil that the collapse of the Soviet Bloc was a planned, or unplanned event?

None of these states have been in existence for longer than a few decades at most. Western democracies are well over 200 years old, and were never perfect then as now, though they have made vast improvements, such as abolishing the slave trade. — Thorongil

The Agreement which defined the modern Middle East is a century old, now, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the people who lived (and live) there. The borders were drawn for the convenience of two colonialist western democracies--the British and French Empires.

But there were three problems with the geo-political order that emerged from the Sykes-Picot agreement.
First, it was secret without any Arabic knowledge, and it negated the main promise that Britain had made to the Arabs in the 1910s - that if they rebelled against the Ottomans, the fall of that empire would bring them independence.
When that independence did not materialise after World War One, and as these colonial powers, in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, continued to exert immense influence over the Arab world, the thrust of Arab politics - in North Africa and in the eastern Mediterranean - gradually but decisively shifted from building liberal constitutional governance systems (as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq had witnessed in the early decades of the 20th Century) to assertive nationalism whose main objective was getting rid of the colonialists and the ruling systems that worked with them.
This was a key factor behind the rise of the militarist regimes that had come to dominate many Arab countries from the 1950s until the 2011 Arab uprisings.

That question is irrelevant. I'm speaking about what public perceptions were about whether it would or would not collapse soon and whether it could be predicted when it would do so. I'm saying that if you pulled aside the average Russian in the mid 1980s and told them that in just a couple years the Soviet Union will have been utterly liquidated, chances are decent to good that he or she would respond with shock and surprise. Obviously, someone closer to the internal workings of power might not be surprised, but I'm again talking about the masses here, who as you said in another thread, are hopelessly naive and aloof all the time.

That question is irrelevant. I'm speaking about what public perceptions were about whether it would or would not collapse soon and whether it could be predicted when it would do so. I'm saying that if you pulled aside the average Russian in the mid 1980s and told them that in just a couple years the Soviet Union will have been utterly liquidated,, chances are decent to good that he or she would respond with shock and surprise. Obviously, some closer to the internal workings of power might have realized it sooner, but I'm again talking about the masses here, who as you said in another thread, are hopefully naive and aloof all the time. — Thorongil

Yes. But there is also another reason why they would act in shock and surprise - namely that if they didn't, they would be killed. This is an old communist test - tell you some misinformation to see how you react to it - and if you react to it in a way that is against party line ... get rid of you.
Also do you think Eastern European countries today have real democracies, or is democracy used merely as a mask?

I don't think any political system can ever be completely implemented, including democracies. They exist in various degrees of correspondence to the ideal, and Eastern European countries perhaps less so than those in the West. I don't know what democracy would be used as a mask for to be honest.

The only ethical solution here would be full support for the Rojavas and no support for anyone else. At the end, have the Rojava leadership assume regional leadership position, and support them in peace and stability efforts. Will it happen? Not a chance in hell. But it's definitely the only ethical solution here.

The only ethical solution here would be full support for the Rojavas and no support for anyone else. At the end, have the Rojava leadership assume regional leadership position, and support them in peace and stability efforts. Will it happen? Not a chance in hell. But it's definitely the only ethical solution here. — discoii

Support by whom? And where then you draw the lines of the Rojava? To what they are now? If I'm correct, not the PYD and the KNC are in control of Rojava and it does have very interesting features (like communality and libertarian socialism), but What's the role of the PKK or the PUK? If Rojava, what about the autonomous areas in Iraq? Kurds have had their own civil wars.

Or if you assume to give a mini-state of the small area of Kurdish held territory in Syria? Is this a valid state below?

(Map from last August, so there might be some changes)


(Kurdish population areas by the CIA in 2002)


Yet I do see a possibility of an independent Kurdistan being created. But the real problem is that in order for this to happen peacefully, there ought to be a plan that Turkey would back up. The tension between Turkey and any independent Kurdish actor is obvious.

This was a key factor behind the rise of the militarist regimes that had come to dominate many Arab countries from the 1950s until the 2011 Arab uprisings. — Bitter Crank

Or to say it otherwise, that the power laid in the hands of minorities in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq was the direct reason that these countries were politically weak and unstable, had totalitarian regimes (in Syria and Iraq) to prop the regime and have failed economically, all have now ended up with very bloody civil wars. That the power ended up with the minorities is a direct consequence of colonialism.