The U.S. does have nonmilitary options in Syria. Here are four of them.

[applegrove]

The U.S. does have nonmilitary options in Syria. Here are four of them.

by Max Fisher at the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/23/the-u-s-does-have-non-military-options-in-syria-here-are-four-of-them/

"SNIP...............................



1. More humanitarian aid, within Syria and in refugee camps

There are more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees who’ve fled the country, into camps where conditions can be awful. They’re also worsening instability in neighboring Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. They’re easier to reach than the suffering civilians within Syria, but there’s just not enough money.

The United Nations announced in June that it needs $5 billion just to cover the most basic Syrian humanitarian needs until the end of the year. The United States announced in August that it would contribute an additional $195 million to humanitarian aid, a big step but far short of what’s needed.

Of course, it’s about more than just dollars. As Hanna notes, support for local governance within rebel-controlled areas of Syria, many of which have seen local institutions completely shattered, could go a long way to helping civilians. It might also make these areas more resilient against extremist influence.

2. Intelligence-sharing with rebels

This has the benefit of bringing U.S. technology and military know-how to bear against the Assad regime, whose forces have been making recent gains, without the long-term dangers that come with arming the rebels. The United States did some of this in Libya and it seemed to help, not insignificantly.


..............................SNIP"

[TwilightGardener]

1. I don't know that I trust intelligence sharing with rebels. I don't trust them.

I think the best option is to wait out Assad, be patient, help the humanitarian angle, develop a long-range strategy for dealing with Syria/Russia in the event either side prevails, and ignore little Johnny Mac hopping up and down and screaming for jets and missiles.

Oh, and if they dare ever deploy chemical weapons again...we've got ships, and maybe Obama is a little crazy...LOL.

[NuclearDem]

2. Absolutely on the humanitarian aid.

If there are good guys in this, it's the countless refugees fleeing Syria. Help the countries receiving the refugees with setting up housing and providing food, water, and medical care.

[davidpdx]

3. #4 kiss Russia's ass

Don't think that will happen. The first two are doable. The third one would be risky.

[David__77]

4. Yes on 4, and part of 1, no on the others.

#1 should not be geared at bolstering any political faction. Simply provide funds through to the UN fund for distribution in Syria - do not use humanitarian aid as a political tool.

#4 is easy. Quit acting like this is a new Cold War and engage in diplomacy.

[JI7]

5. what are 3 and 4 ? not sure i agree with intelligence sharing with rebels

[davidpdx]

7. Because of the paragraph limit it was hard for the OP to get all of it in there

Here are three and four:

3. Covert antiaircraft action

Hanna suggests that slipping in teams of Special Operations Forces to “employ antiaircraft missile systems to harass and deter Syrian air power” could slow Assad’s march into rebel-held areas without risking costly U.S. involvement. My caveat here would be that, after the costly political backlash in Washington against the deaths of U.S. officials in Benghazi in September 2012, it’s hard to imagine that the Obama administration is eager to risk cable news coverage of Navy SEALS killed in Syria. (To be clear, Hanna specifically suggests sanctioning covert action by regional allies, not U.S. forces.)

4. Make up with Russia (or even Iran!)

It’s no secret that U.S.-Russian relations are in dire straits, partly for lack of much mutual interest and partly due to big disagreements, such as over NSA leaker Edward Snowden. But Russia plays a big role in Syria, where it opposes any Western intervention and supports the Assad regime, and on the crucial U.N. Security Council. Swallowing hard and reaching out to Moscow might be distasteful, but a bit of U.S.-Russian goodwill could certainly help to bring around Moscow’s support, or at least chip away at its opposition.

Assad’s other major ally, of course, is Iran. But even peace-minded Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has signaled that he’s content with the status quo on Tehran’s Syria policy of backing Assad. So there’s not much promise of Iran significantly changing policy. Still, Rouhani has made it clear that he wants to try for peace with the West, which gives the United States a bit more leverage than usual — if not to reverse Tehran’s pro-Assad policy in Syria, then perhaps at least to soften it a bit.

I think another option would be to jam the radar in the entire country. I'm not sure if that would cause all communications to be lost or not.

[Mr.Bill]

6. Anti-Aircraft Missiles (#3)

hardly sounds non military to me.

[davidpdx]

8. Agreed

It is too risky and too much like military intervention. 3 & 4 are both bad options.

[Mr.Bill]

9. Here's an off-the-wall idea

How about if we offer them something that along with death and destruction, we are the best in the world at. Medical aid. Let's send in mobile hospitals and treat the wounded. I would be more proud of my country offering that than more bombs.

[eridani]

10. #2 = help Islamists deport Christians and massacre Alawites n/t

[freshwest]

11. Not sure. Just working this out:

1. More humanitarian aid, within Syria and in refugee camps

No, the UN can do that through safe passage. All sides like them as much as usual. It's also a band aid and a cover for those making the problem. It's not a natural disaster, it's done purposefully. Why keep people dependent as refugees when the problem isn't them. No more permanent refugee camps while the people in charge steal money and play games. Go to the root causes.

2. Intelligence-sharing with rebels

Not just No, but Hell No. Sounds like the Post is pimping for the MIC. Ooh, we can share our latest toys and make more money. The problem is human, not a matter of technology. The Post suggests doing it to bring down the Assad regime. Why do we need that?

No more war by proxy, when the real power is their allies. Make a deal to stop the slaughter. Let them do it.

3. Covert antiaircraft action

No. See #2. Same reason.

4. Make up with Russia (or even Iran!)

Yes. We have a lot in common with Russia in terms of trade. We train and work together on the space program:

http://us-russia200.moscow.usembassy.gov/200th/anniversary.php?record_id=space

We have economic ties with them:

http://www.consensuseconomics.com/News_and_Articles/US_Russia_Economic_Relations411.htm

The USA is selling them nuclear stuff. This article does say it will help with proliferation. Not like we can't talk about it. They might even give us some incentive to reduce our WMD more than we already have. Other than that, worried about a nuclear Iran when their Russians pals can give them what they need? We should all be scared to death. Really?

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/01/11/us_russia_civil_nuclear_deal_comes_into_effect/

Still selling them more stuff and buying stuff:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/us-usa-russia-trade-idUSTRE8261RL20120307

FWIW, the lives lost may be some psychopathic game being applied to get better trade terms. Russia and the USA are not political enemies, anymore than China and the USA. Competitors in all matters of resources, yes, which has nothing to do with ideology or theology.

And Iran is just as much a friend of Russia as Syria is. Their mutual histories go back many hundreds of years. And yes, they are NOT nice people overall.

I am pissed about Assad or whoever killing his people. Maybe we are going to come of age and realize that human priorities are all off. I am ready to be informed by those who know more. Gotta go.

[The Straight Story]

12. The saudis just ponied up 300 million in aid and the UN is already helping refugees

I think it would be best to hit a few of their radars and anti-aircraft defense systems. Won't help the rebels since they don't use aircraft, will hurt the ability of Syria to defend itself should they keep up with more attacks, and will cost them money (and throw in some sanctions so they can't import more such devices).