Why couldn't we create a "safe zone" in Syria for the refugees?

[NightWatcher]

Why couldn't the coalition members secure a large enough piece of land in Syria to accommodate a village for the thousands of people who are fleeing Syria?

Why couldn't we create a heavily guarded safe zone so that these refugees do not have to be resettled in Louisiana or Germany, or somewhere from which they'll never return in the event that conditions improve in Syria?

Just a thought. Now tell me how I'm wrong...

[jonno99]

1. K&R

[zazen]

2. ISIL surface to air missiles with kidnapped, downed US soldiers being burned alive on TV?

I'm with you. If we do this in concert with Russia (who are in the area, so we'd have to), it does seem like the next step.

OTOH, the idea that any of our pilots could be shot down and tortured and murdered on live TV. . . well, I guess our special ops are already taking those risks, but I wouldn't be willing to send my children there to do that (or, I'd do it if I had a cyanide pill), so I feel like I can't ask anyone else to do that, yet.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. How many US troops do you think that would take?

A better bet would be to get a negotiated ceasefire, as the beginning of a political settlement. The G20 heads of start are working on this right now.

[karynnj]

24. True - as soon as there is a ceasefire - all of non ISIS Syria becomes the safe state

In fact, if people do feel safe -- then the longer term goal of a stable, inclusive Syria, with whatever government they select is more likely.

The statement - at the foreign minister level - that announced the agreement on Saturday included a schedule that they hope to beat. Here is a link to the Kerry/Lavrov/Staffan de Mistura (UN) press conference on Saturday that included the goals. http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/11/249515.htm

Most of the next steps seem to be led by the UN - obviously with the support of all. It is impressive that so much has been accomplished and signed off on at the Presidential level in this round of what has been a long frustrating diplomatic effort.

[Calista241]

29. So why do you think these religious fanatics who want their 72 virgins

Will ever agree to a real, actual ceasefire.

More than just agreeing to one so they can infiltrate and perpetuate more attacks on their enemies?

I don't see this group of people ever coming to the table to sue for peace. Their idea of paradise seems to be killing people for fun, especially if there's the slightest disagreement over anything religious in nature.

[karynnj]

30. The cease fire is NOT for ISIS or al Nusra or any other organization deemed a terrorist group

The point is that there are two things happening in Syria:

1) A very bloodly civil war

2) ISIS controlling an area near the Iraqi border.

The agreement is to deal with 1) -- which has been the source of far more lives and is responsible for making most of the refugees leave.

[DetlefK]

4. Where? Who will defend it? How? Who will deliver supplies to the refugees?

Where in Syria would this zone be located? Assad-territory? Rebel-territory? ISIS-territory? YPG-territory? Al Nusra-territory?

What happens if some dudes with machine-guns show up and attack the zone? You wanna launch fighter-bombers for that?

And what exactly are the people in the zone supposed to do?
There's no housing, no water, no electricity, no food, no nothing.
Who gets this stuff into the zone and distributes it there?

[NightWatcher]

6. It would be a UN peacekeeping and humanitarian force

[DetlefK]

10. That explains nothing.

Who would the people wearing the blue helmets be? (Plus all the other questions...)

The UN has no army (or a fleet of Men in Black in black helicopters who try to destroy the sport of Golf). It's countries that donate their ressources for UN-missions.

[NightWatcher]

18. It's made up of members from US, Germany, UK...

The same people who will have to absorb the refugees (aka new immigrants).

[DetlefK]

20. BUT WHO WILL BE ON THE GROUND ACTUALLY DOING THINGS?

The US is part of the UN and you are part of the US... Does that mean you will be involved in handing out food and blankets, setting up generators, administrating medicinal supplies?
No?

So who will actually do all this stuff that needs to be done to make the idea of this safe-zone come true?

Military and civilian personnel from a coalition of countries?
What a coincidence. That's also exactly who would do it if the UN weren't involved at all.

[karynnj]

25. That explains why the agreement in Vienna, that the world leaders approved in Turkey, is important

It includes a ceasefire - except for Al Nusra and ISIS. Here is a link to Kerry/Lavrov/ and Staffan de Mistura (UN). http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/11/249515.htm

I would guess that most of those questions become far more answerable if the first several steps of that agreement happen.

[jeff47]

5. Well, problem #1 is there's no food

One of the major factors that triggered Syria's civil war was a drought, and subsequent loss of food production.

Problem #2 is that "heavily guarded safe zone" would require troops on the ground. Which would not be "greeted as liberators". And would also be a lovely stepping stone to attacking a few "clusters of militants", and then a few more. And some more. Until we're involved in a full-scale ground war.

Problem #3: Russia would be very pissed off at our troops being in their client state. Especially since Assad is not going to give permission for our troops to be there - Chaos is Assad's key to remaining in power. He can point to the relative safety during his regime as proof that he needs to be restored to power.

[NightWatcher]

13. Is this a refugee from war or drought problem?

As climate conditions worsen, numbers of refugees from drought will only grow. The rest of the world cannot bare the climate refugee burden.

I was only trying to find a closer place for them than Europe or the US, from which they'll never return, burden our resources, or provide cover for an influx of terrorists.

If Syria is too much of a mess, maybe somewhere else nearby, so that the possibility of returning home remains.

[jeff47]

17. Drought is one of the causes of the war.

Wars always have multiple causes. Drought is one of the causes of this war.

Syria hasn't exactly been a happy place for a long time, but it takes a bit to go from "not a happy place" to civil war. Drought and food insecurity was one of the things that pushed towards war.

As climate conditions worsen, numbers of refugees from drought will only grow. The rest of the world cannot bare the climate refugee burden.

This is why climate change actually is our greatest security threat. People do not peacefully starve to death.

I was only trying to find a closer place for them than Europe or the US, from which they'll never return, burden our resources, or provide cover for an influx of terrorists.

You have that backwards.

Western Europe has a population problem: They haven't been having enough children. As a result, they're going to have big economic problems when the older people retire. They did not make enough kids to support them in their retirement. Take a gander at Japan for the last 3 decades: it has not been good. Too few kids are being taxed to support too many older people who no longer work. That has resulted in an explosion of Japanese debt in order to keep paying the bills. And it can't continue forever.

Western Europe is heading to the same problem. They've been having around 1.8 kids per woman, and you need 2.1 kids per woman for a stable population. You need at least a stable population in order for the government to afford concepts like "retirement".

Taking in refugees fixes that. It provides a pool of younger workers to make up for the lack of younger workers "produced internally". They do jobs, pay taxes, and the economy in those countries can continue to work.

So relocating Syrian refugees to Europe is not a burden on Europe's resources. It's a net boost in resources.

[pintobean]

7. The perfect person to organize it

[Dr. Strange]

9. Um...

you better make sure to have someone serving as her "muscle".

[Aerows]

32. And this has exactly what to do

with the price of tea in China?

[aikoaiko]

8. Like the Gaza Strip?

[Iggo]

12. Exactly.

[malaise]

11. "We"?

Haven't 'we' creating enough of a fucking mess on this planet?

[NightWatcher]

15. We made the mess, we should help clean it up.

Or we'll have to absorb a ton of refugees that we can't afford.

[LanternWaste]

19. I certainly understand your desire to walk away...

Walking away angrily from a mess he's made is the petulant child's option. Cleaning up the mess and finding an adult solution to prevent more messes is for adults.

I certainly understand your desire to walk away...

[Comrade Grumpy]

31. Must you consistently insult other posters and think you're being cute about it?

I find your passive-aggressive, snarky posting style very obnoxious.

[MineralMan]

14. How does one create a "safe zone" in a country

where there is no safe zone? Heavily guarded? By whom? Are you aware of the numbers of people fleeing Syria at all?

Who feeds and houses them? How many armed military forces do you think it would take to create a "safe zone" for hundreds of thousands of people?

I think you have not thought this through very well yet.

[NightWatcher]

16. Of course I didn't think it through. Just brainstorming

I'm just trying to think of things different than resettling a country here and throughput Europe.

So what should we do, just absorb a few million people in the US and Europe?

[MineralMan]

23. Frankly, it's a problem too large for me to even begin

thinking about solutions. I'm going to have to leave that to others with global experience.

[Sunlei]

21. Why won't Assad & Russia create a safe zone in Syria?I don't think Assad wants those 12 million back

[bunnies]

22. Pretty sure thats what Jeb! wants to do.

[Marrah_G]

26. Not with Assad and Isis there.

Assad would bomb them and Isis would attack them.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. There are more than a few problems with this plan:

1) The basics: Food, water, and waste disposal. If you're going to secure a piece of land to settle, it has to be able to fulfill the biological needs of those residing upon it. In a place like Syria, this kind of prime real estate will be heavily defended.

2) External security. ISIS is an army and armies have artillery. You can go ahead and hole up in your reservation; nothing is stopping them from dropping mortars on your head except for their limited understanding of trigonometry.

3) Internal security. Let's say you get your land and open your doors to all Syrians seeking safe refuge from the terrors of civil war. Just one question: how do you tell the difference between a refugee and a suicide bomber pretending to be a refugee?

4), 5) & 6): Shelter, electricity, and infrastructure. Unless you're planning on the war being over in a few weeks, you might consider investing in the rudimentary elements of modern civilization. Unless, of course, you think living in tents in the middle of the desert is preferable to asylum in Europe or the United States.

7) Mathematics. If ISIS or any of the other Syrian factions decides they want to do away with your camp, it is unlikely to remain under your control for very long, no matter how much money you dump into defending it. They are mobile, they know the land, and, perhaps most importantly, they outnumber you. By a lot.

8) There's also the ethical concern of occupying land in Syria. Despite the shitstorm brewing there, it remains a sovereign nation with a recognized government. We can't just drop in there and take a slice of Bashar Al-Assad's back yard without stirring a geopolitical hornet's nest.

As shitty as it sounds, I think offering Syrians asylum is the best, safest option.

[randome]

28. I'm thinking Josh Marshall has it about right. It's time to support Assad.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/what-to-do-about-isis

I don't know what the precise best policies here are. But I do have a clear idea of several of the building blocks. The first recalls something I said a few weeks ago, which is that it is folly to be actively engaged against both sides in a civil war, which is effectively what we are now doing. Such a policy may have a cynical logic when you have two hostile entities which you want to see wear each other down and pulverize each other - much as we did during the Iran-Iraq War in 1980s. That is not the current situation. The Assad regime, while bloody, does not in any way pose an immediate threat to the United States.

We need to redefine our Syria policy around the goal of the physical elimination of ISIS as a territorial entity and the physical destruction of its top leaders. If that means accepting the continuance of Assad family rule in at least rump Syria than we need to accept that - even though he's backed by regional adversaries Russia and Iran. Again, how serious are we about eliminating ISIS? I'd say not very serious if we're still hung up on Assad.

It's a bitter pill to swallow but...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Waiting For Everyman]

33. Good question.

That's what will be done eventually, because it's the only solution that is a solution. So naturally, nobody wants to do it.

[Blue_Tires]

34. 1. Can't promise safety

2. Little to no resources, and the logistical difficulties of getting them there

3. A "heavily guarded safe zone" in their own country starts to feel damn near like an internment camp. What will the people do there day and night?

4. How big do you want this space? You're talking about living space for tens of thousands of people...The bigger you make the living space, the less secure it's going to be and the more manpower you'll have to invest to keep it secure.

5. Assad in an asshole, but he's still running the show in Syria so we can't do anything there without his blessing and full cooperation.

[Glassunion]

35. It's not thousands, it's millions.

It's a logistical nightmare.
This is but 1 refugee camp. It can barely contain 4% of all of the Syrian refugees.


With the limited resources that this camp can provide, organized crime has become rampant as folks struggle to obtain those resources.

These things are simple for us, because we have had decades building our infrastructure. How does one go about suddenly getting running water, shelter, food, sewage, medical support, and sanitation for millions? Then you'd need some sort of security both inside and out.

You'd need to setup something about 30% larger than this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. There are camps in adjacent countries, where a 'safe zone' is a realistic concept

But the world didn't keep them well supplied with food and basics, and many refugees looked at the situation back in Syria, decided there was no chance of them going home in the near future, and thought the chance of living somewhere not on the edge of starvation, possibly being able to find a job, looked better.

Dec 2014: 1.7m Syrian refugees face food crisis as UN funds dry up
Mar 2015: UN Shrinks Food Aid to Syria Refugees in Turkey
July 2015: World Food Program cuts aid to Syrian refugees in Jordan
Aug 2015: Funding outlook for Syrian refugees is ‘bleak,’ head of World Food Program says
Sept 2015: Lack of funds: World Food Programme drops aid to one-third of Syrian refugees

Penny-pinching by the world was a significant cause of the refugee crisis.