So Syrians (and other Arabs and Muslims) do not know that a secular (if brutal) dictator is the best

[pampango]

they can hope for?



http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/07/10/most-muslims-want-democracy-personal-freedoms-and-islam-in-political-life/

In the US we understand that "stability" ("law and order&quot is better for them (and for us?) than is democracy.



http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/18/on-eve-of-foreign-debate-growing-pessimism-about-arab-spring-aftermath

Democrats leaned more towards democracy over stability than did republicans, but a majority of Democrats still favored stability as our main policy goal in the Middle East.

There was a bigger partisan difference with regards to changes brought about by the Arab Spring would lead to "lasting improvements" in the lives of the people there. Republicans were very negative on the Arab Spring by more than 4-1. Democrats were much more split - 45% negative, 37% positive. Lastly, republicans thought the Arab Spring was bad for the US by almost another 4-1 margin. Again, Democrats were more split with 21% believing it was bad for the US, while 16% thought it was good.



At least most folks in the Middle East will not be disappointed when the US supports stability (dictators) for them rather than democracy. They expect little else from us.

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. the strongest armed factions backing the rebels are highly sectarian Sunni Muslim factions backed by

Saudi Arabia - It is simply not plausible that American military intervention will facilitate a democracy when the strongest factions with the guns are anything but democratic. Remember all the countries American intervened in over the last 60 years supposedly to bring them democracy?

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Yes but this time will be different.

Or some other bullshit.

[HardTimes99]

6. This time it will be a cakewalk. :sarcasm: <---Poe's Law - nt

[KittyWampus]

5. Well, there might be a Democracy but the election might not yield a particularly secular result.

[pampango]

10. I'm am not arguing for intervention. It would make things worse. I am arguing for the desire

of all people to not have to live under a dictatorship even a secular one.

Other poll results at the link show support for religious fundamentalists is in the single digits. You are right. How do you achieve democratic rights for people when the people with most of the guns represent either the dictator or religious fundamentalists wanting to replace him?

The choice of it is either the dictator of the terrorists is the choice Assad has wanted all along. He looks much better given this choice than if it is a choice between people who want democracy and him as a hereditary dictator.

[MNBrewer]

17. Some might prefer to LIVE under secular dictatorship rather than die under a religious one.

[pampango]

18. Agreed. That is the sad choice. It is certainly the one Assad has been hoping it boils down to.

He has been presenting the "it's either me or the terrorists" choice since the protests began 2 1/2 years ago. He is a smart guy and knows that many will see him as "the lesser of two evils" compared to Al Qaeda. When this started in early 2011, he was compared to protesters who wanted a more open, representative for of government and he did not look like the "lesser of two evils" back then.

Of course, a version of your post is what many white South Africans expressed during the apartheid years. "We prefer to LIVE under an admittedly racist, minority-based form of government rather than die under a majority-Black democratic one." Of course, reality showed that a majority-Black (majority-Sunni in Syria?) government was not as bad as the apartheid proponents had predicted, but a fear of it at the time served the purposes of the people in power.

The Syrian people deserve a better choice, as did the Blacks in South Africa, but they are unlikely to get it any time soon.

[last1standing]

19. As you stated, "they are unlikely to get it any time soon."

That is the greatest problem with the US using force in Syria, there is no viable plan to make life better for the Syrians afterward. It's like that meme that used to float around a few years ago.

1. Work up support to help the Syrian people against a ruthless dictator.
2. Use force to disrupt the Syrian regime's military.
3. ???????
4. Profit!!!!!

We have no plan for what to do after the use of force and only the vaguest of notions as to what a post-Assad government will likely entail. Furthermore, we have no idea what consequences could arise after the use of force that may force us into other conflicts or cause us to lose even more credibility with the rest of the world.

Why is this administration willing to risk so much treasure and standing with so little chance of success?

[pampango]

20. I think that is why he has been and is resisting the 'regime-change' type

of attacks that McCain and others have long wanted. (Indeed, if Bush/Cheney or McCain/Palin had been in charge it would have happened long ago before any chemical weapons were used and Syria would be in an even bigger mess today.)

Obama seems convinced that Assad used chemical weapons, will do it again if not dissuaded and Obama thinks he has a limited tactic that will dissuade without pursuing regime change which, he probably agrees with you, is not in the best interests of the Syrian people.

[last1standing]

21. To be clear, I'm not convinced that regime change isn't in the best interests of the Syrian people.

I really don't know what is in their best interests and I don't think that anyone is asking them their opinion.

Regardless, I think that attacking without the support the UN, both in funds and troops/missiles, is a very big mistake.

I am at least glad that Obama has gone to Congress with this. I just hope he accepts their decision if it goes against him.

[burnsei sensei]

3. It is only a matter of time,

the world will cease to want the fossil fuels the Middle East provides, and then the issues of democracy and stability will be matters of supreme indifference.
The region will retreat into the irrelevance and inconsequential nest from which it emerged in the 20th century.
To have their countries and cultures left utterly alone by the "corrupt West" will make Arabs and Muslims supremely happy. It is what they have always wanted.
At first, the West was colonial.
Now it claims to be reformist and diplomatic, when it's not being belligerent.
We are not responsible for the peoples of the world.
It's time we stopped counseling them out of benevolent ethnocentrism.

[FarCenter]

4. The result of democratic elections will be to establish anti-Israeli, Muslim theocracies.

The average Arab man-in-the-street is opposed to Israel and favors Islam.

[last1standing]

7. What percentage of the Syrian people want democracy?

And exactly what does bombing the country do in support of creating democracy whether the people want it or not?

I'm afraid there are far too many gaps in the statistics you've provided to show that overthrowing Assad has any chance at all of creating democracy in Syria or that democracy is a result the Syrian people even desire.

[MADem]

8. The US doesn't have a goal of "creating democracy" or even "regime change" in Syria.

They favor a Yemen Scenario for Syria.

The brutal dictator leaves; his VP steps up, the regime stays the same, and diplomacy can be initiated under a new, ostensibly less-intractable head of state.

[last1standing]

9. Unlikely to succeed but I suppose it's possible.

For my tastes that scenario creates too many moving parts with far too many ways for things to go wrong.

Still, it does seem that US leadership has favored the plan you outlined. It rarely works, but that never stops them from trying.

[MADem]

11. The only moving part is al-Assad, and maybe his gassy brother Maher.

It's the fewest moving parts in any scenario, save leaving the bastard in place. And the whole country will continue to roil if that's the case, and Syria's neighbors will have to continue to deal with the refugee messes.

Yemen is admittedly a different situation, but it did the trick there.

It's not just USA that likes this plan, the Arab League likes it too. So do many others.

It leaves the nuts and bolts in place, so that there's infrastructure stability and a certain day-to-day predictability. It's not a free for all with "vases" (and other valuables--and yep, that was a snark at Rummy) walking out of buildings.

[last1standing]

13. The rebels, the Islamic Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, Hezbullah, Russia...

It seems to me there are many moving parts that the US can't control.

[pampango]

12. A poll wasn't conducted in Syria in 2011/2012. Unlike their neighbors Syrians could oppose democracy

"My people love me and do not want to have a voice in selecting their leaders" is what most dictators claim.

I see no reason that Syrians are any different from any other Arabs, Muslims or people in general. Few of us want a government we can't question or openly discuss. It seems strange that anyone would think that Syrians are more - what "child-like" - and want a strong father-figure who is born into the position and who tells them what to do.

Why would Syrians not want to have a voice in choosing their leaders when all their neighbors seem to want that?

[last1standing]

14. Not everyone shares our values. Look at Pakistan.

Only 42% support democracy in Pakistan, should we attempt to force them to accept it?

I believe that deciding for a nation's people the form of government it is allowed to have is treating them in a "child-like" manner. Shouldn't we have the facts before we act instead of assuming everyone wants what we want?

[pampango]

15. Fair enough but when you have been ruled by a father-son dictatorship for 42 years, how

would you know if Syrians did prefer a democracy? Most dictators are not too good at checking with their citizens regularly to see if they want a change in government.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Syria is one of the original 48 countries which signed the UDHR.

[last1standing]

16. That's the problem, I don't know if the Syrian people would prefer democracy and neither does the US

We didn't know if the Iraqis or the Afghans preferred democracy, either. Why don't we take a little time to find out exactly what's going on in Syria and try to find the method of attaining those goals, with the support of the world community, with the least amount of bloodshed.

As it stands, the plan being discussed does nothing to promote democracy or stable government. It merely changes the dynamics of a power struggle between the forces of a ruthless dictator and the forces of an extremist religious organization.

As for the UDHR, I think the US needs to look inward before demanding others uphold its tenets.