The Syrian Problem And How To Solve It

Almost as victory after victory, while fragmenting Ottoman Empire, Europeans lessened the power of Muslims; converting Umma loyalty to nation loyalty they weakened Islam itself. Like workers of the world unite, although transcending borders Bath party almost seemed to reverse it, being lesser believers in Allah, it hit Islam more. Adding fuel to fire, the made-stable minority government was designed to make sure weakness remained static and arms sales increased for its defence. Seeing influence and cash, Russia descended from the North and China saw something good in the west.

And when the Arab Spring made the stable government unstable, suddenly the Junior Assad, who befriended the Queen, wasn't happy. Suddenly defence became essential. And when Hague's Court was after him for genocide, victory at any cost replaced it and all out offence became the rule. With all parties interested, Syria has become second Afghanistan after the cold war.

However, unlike in Afghanistan, the rebels here are split into extremists and moderates, and are buddies only because of a common enemy: Assad. While this binary-looking triangular hostility hasn't made strike on Assad easy, support by East hasn't added ease either. In fact, with Shia states aiding Assad, Sunni ones aiding moderates and Al-Qaida pushing extremists, a second triangle is formed that isn't equilateral. Although it shows desperation, with it being untouchable, world painfully watches the saga as if it was a boxing match. And Assad's victory has been tracing stock market's graph. And when the graph showed him edging upward, suddenly YouTube came up with videos showing tragic use of chemical weapons. While Galloway reasoned wrong timing of its use as Assad was gaining anyway and cried foul, the West reasoned break in international law and saw right time to strike Assad. Suddenly, Hague and Obama trumpeted war cries.

Before the rebels could even rejoice the support, being earlier than the UN report, UK parliament suddenly said no to the strike. Like one divorce infectiously leading to more divorce in the area, breaking traditions, Obama is following suit now: going the legislative way. Almost opposite to Munchausen's syndrome, the working of Blair-Bush syndrome is clear here. In addition, however, almost reminding the repeated lie in 'tiger in the village' story, less trust on leader is also accompanied by less trust in spy agencies.

While Guantanamo, Wikileaks, and Snowden saga and 'decision' before UN result has added to the mistrust on even the world leader, reminding the good old days of cold war and strike the iron when it's hot, Putin spread his influence. Suddenly at G8 summit, while almost matching anti-immigration campaign Cameron got a 'UK is a small island', the most powerful leader, a Noble Laureates Obama lost 'our allies', felt lonely amongst G8 leaders and looked tired.

Although Cameron was upset earlier and Obama is upset now, and gleeful Assad has suddenly thanked Allah, it's the wrongly-timed approach that has done so. A right timing can make Putin's turn come and then of Assad.

But how?

Unlike that of  USA, UN's evidence will be respected. Beyond that, and apart from the distress that Syria is causing all concerned (deaths, refugees, rapes etc), with use of chemical weapons being not only a break in international law but actually killing and maiming civilians in a horrible way and being easily repeated if not acted upon, compulsion to act will be strong. With UN charter signing East also having thinkers and shame, even Putin can't say no to strikes then. However, even if he vetoes in Security Council, a yes by general assembly will form a truly unified world, as opposed to the present 'US and its allies'.


With rebels already matching Assad's forces, air strikes, like in Libya will be effective. Although blasting chemical stores, especially when hidden in residential area, will kill many civilians, blasting airports/helipads/hardware will cripple the regime. While this'll also help lessen attacks on Christians, unless a compromise is reached, Assad's downfall will immediately lead to a 2nd conflict between moderate and extremist rebels. Indirect ground help will only act sluggishly; tragedies will continue and even arm the extremists.

Next essay will say how the second conflict should be dealt with.