The barbarity of Assad's regime in Syria has generated an understandable urge for a quick military solution, perhaps similar to our approach in Libya (arming rebels, providing safe havens, supporting rebels with air strikes, or other U.S. military assistance).  Candidate Romney, for example, has "criticized Mr. Obama’s leadership on Syria and supports arming the rebels".

Here are nine reasons we should proceed cautiously, be patient in seeking a diplomatic solution, and strive (as we successfully did in the first Gulf War) to ensure we have the largest possible coalition if we do intervene.

Reason 1: Assad is murderous, but if this escalates to a war - casualties could be far worse.  Over the past year, the Syrian regime murdered approximately 9,000 to 11,000 people. The death of one person is a tragedy, and the Assad regime has murdered many times over.

However, people are being murdered by Assad's regime in Syria at the rate of about 40-50 deaths per 100,000 Syrians, per year.  This is approximately the murder rate in New Orleans or Detroit.  A military intervention, of any type, could end up triggering far more Syrian civilian deaths.

Reason 2: Syria has one of the world's largest chemical weapons programs (an estimated fifty storage and production facilities), and some of these facilities are in heavily populated areas.   The U.S. Military has estimated that it could take 75,000 U.S. ground troops to secure all of Syria's chemical weapons facilities.  During the time it would take to secure these facilities, Assad could use these chemical weapons: against Israel (to trigger a regional war), against the mainland U.S., against Turkey, against his own civilian population or that of other countries.  In the confusion of regime change (even in the best scenario, there will be some breakdown in controls), chemical weapons could fall into the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.  Or, an American air attack might strike a secret chemical weapons storage area, accidentally killing large numbers of people. 

Reason 3: United States intervention in Syria will be viewed as occupation - not liberation, vastly complicating resolution of post-Assad issues.  Obama's critics believe the Middle East wants U.S. intervention in Syria. The U.S. isn't viewed favorably in the Arab world.  Opinion polls in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan show a consistently unfavorable view of our intervention in Iraq.  If the U.S. intervenes in Syria, Assad will position himself as a Syrian nationalist fighting American-Zionist occupation (it worked for Saddam and his supporters).

Reason 4: Syria is large, with a population at least three times the size of Libya. Libya is a small country (population 6.7 million); Syria's population is about 23 million, closer in size to Iraq.

Reason 5: Syria is a cauldron of sectarian communities.  Libya is 97% Sunni, but Syria's population (like Iraq's) is heterogenous: Sunni Muslim 74%, other Muslim (including Alawite, Druze) 16%, and Christian (various denominations) 10%.  Intervention (such as, arming Syrian rebels) has a significant probability of igniting a sectarian conflict (as we experienced in Iraq), with differing religious groups engaging in ethnic cleansing to create 'pure' neighborhoods (which happened in Baghdad). The resulting civilian death toll could vastly exceed the current carnage.

Reason 6: The Syrian military is well-armed and loyal to Assad.  Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya - the Syrian military is trained and armed with modern weapons.  Further, Assad has been improving its capabilities (this spring, Syria received a major new anti-aircraft system).  The ruling Assad family is Alawite, and the military appears loyal to the regime (career military, 70% Alawite).  A significant portion of Syria's population would remain loyal to Assad for fear of living under a Sunni-dominated government.

Reason 7: Unlike Libya, the Assad regime is receiving outside support.  Assad already receives support from Iran and Russia.  American intervention in Syria could trigger increased Iranian and Russian aid to Assad.  The Iranian government would welcome trapping the U.S. in a proxy war in Syria, further draining our resources and distracting America from Iran's nuclear ambitions.  Intervention in Syria could result in a prolonged war.

Reason 8: Assad's successors could be worse for Syria and the U.S.  Our intervention in Iraq left the Iraqis and the United States in worse shape.  The new Iraqi government is not particularly friendly to the U.S., is friendly with Iran, and 65% of Iraqis believe conditions were better (or the same) under Saddam.  As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff emphasized, we know almost nothing about the Syrian rebels.   

Reason 9: Charity begins at home.  America has a massive budget deficit; domestic infrastructure that's falling apart; murder rates making some of our inner cities as dangerous as Syria; our military served honorably and bravely in Afghanistan and Iraq, but deserves some rest; and many other challenges. This isn't the time for a new Middle Eastern adventure, unless absolutely necessary.

For the sakes of the American and Syrian people, military intervention should be our last resort and should be carefully planned, based on realistic assumptions.  

Note: Unless otherwise specified population, demographic, and economic data are from the CIA World Factbook.

You can follow Steven Strauss on twitter at: @Steven_Strauss or on Facebook at: https://www.FaceBook.com/Steven.Strauss.Updates

About the Author: Steven Strauss was founding Managing Director of the Center for Economic Transformation at the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC).  He is an Advanced Leadership Fellow at Harvard University for 2012.  He has a Ph.D. in Management from Yale University, over 20 years' private sector work experience, and has worked in the Middle East in various capacities.

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Barbara Walters, the grande dame of American television news, has been forced to apologise after it emerged that she had tried to use her influence to further the career of a former leading aide of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Emails seen by The Daily Telegraph show that Walters tried to help Sheherazad Jaafari, the daughter of Syria's UN ambassador, secure a place at an Ivy League university and an internship with Piers Morgan's CNN programme.

When confronted with the emails, which were obtained by a Syrian opposition group, the 82-year-old ABC broadcaster admitted a conflict of interest and expressed "regret" for her actions.

Miss Jaafari, 22, was a close adviser to Mr Assad and was at his side as Syrian troops stepped up their campaign of killing and repression. She would speak to him several times a day, sometimes calling him "the Dude" in her adopted American accent, and was sometimes the only official in the room when he did interviews with Western journalists.

Miss Jaafari, whose father Bashar Jaafari has known Walters for around seven years, began dealing with the broadcaster late last year as ABC News lobbied for an interview with Mr Assad.

Walters's interview in December – the first with an American television network – made headlines around the world as Mr Assad denied he was responsible for the crackdown which had already resulted in thousands of deaths in Syria. The emails show that, after the interview, Miss Jaafari and Walters stayed in close contact.

When Miss Jaafari returned to New York she reached out again to Walters, whom she referred to as her "adopted mother". In return, Walters called her "dear girl" and sometimes signed off "Hugs, Barbara".

They met for lunch at the Mark Hotel on Manhattan's Upper East Side in late January, where Miss Jaafari apparently asked for a job at ABC News. Walters said she refused but offered to use her contacts to help her in other ways.

Shortly afterwards, Walters emailed the young Syrian saying: "I wrote to Piers Morgan and his producer to say how terrific you are and attached your résumé." She also asked whether Miss Jaafari was still planning on applying to Columbia University and offered to help.

A week later, Walters emailed Richard Wald, a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism and the father of Jonathan Wald, Morgan's executive producer.

Walters described Miss Jaafari as "brilliant, beautiful, [and] speaks five languages" and asked whether there was "anything you can do to help?" Prof Wald replied that he would get the admissions office to "give her special attention".

Neither Professor Wald nor Columbia returned a request for comment.

Miss Jaafari did not ultimately get the internship nor the university place.

Walters was one of only a handful of Americans invited to a private party hosted by the ambassador in March 2011, the same month that the uprising against the Assad regime began. The only other journalist on the guest list was a reporter from Press TV, Iran's state-owned television channel. She did not attend the event.

The broadcaster is currently the host of The View, a daytime talk show, but over a decades-long career has interviewed many of the biggest figures in American politics and culture. Her interview with Monica Lewinsky after her affair with Bill Clinton attracted a record 74 million viewers.

In a statement, Walters said: "In the aftermath [of the Assad interview], Ms Jaafari returned to the US and contacted me looking for a job. I told her that was a serious conflict of interest and that we would not hire her. I did offer to mention her to contacts at another media organisation and in academia, though she didn't get a job or into school. In retrospect, I realise that this created a conflict and I regret that."

Miss Jaafari was part of a young circle of aides who advised Mr Assad to speak to the Western media as evidence of atrocities mounted. When he agreed to the interview with Walters in December, Miss Jaafari wrote a list of talking points advising that the "American psyche can be easily manipulated" if he were to make a limited expression of regret. Miss Jaafari did not respond to phone calls, texts or emails.

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

In a recent interview with the Business Insider, I said that "problems in Iran and Syria are 'wonderful for the Russian economy.'" I meant it.

Adam Taylor's article, "For all the bluster, these three reasons show Russia's position on Iran may be surprisingly sane" explores well why Russia is interested in the ambiguity around Iranian nuclear program. In brief, two things to keep in mind: the unstable region means higher oil prices (good for Russia), and Iran as a neighboring Islamic nuclear power means an imminent threat to Russia beyond any American's imagination (bad for Russia). After all, world economics and politics are a fine art of balancing, and that's what Russia is doing; playing a dangerous game, one that's paying off well so far with Putin's balanced federal budget.

The new unstable player of the region is Syria, and many Americans, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, cannot wrap their mind around Russian and Chinese stance of non-involvement. The situation is similar to the one with Iran and Libya, but if one takes a closer look, it is different and only "better" for Russia and China. Suffering and dying of innocent people are of course bad things; however, they are bad only for the people experiencing them. The Russian Orthodox Church, led by a former colleague of Putin, condemns the violence, but would also remind you that there is a lot of suffering in the world, and the best immediate thing we can do is just pray for the victims. Gadhafi was a stabilizing force in his country, and NATO's help to the Libyan rebellion meant instability (higher oil prices, better budget in Russia). Gadhafi was a Russian ally, and Russia faced the loss of a $4 billion weapons contract. However, that monetary loss was offset by the significant increase in oil prices, and Gadhafi's old age helped Russia shape its decision to control the timing of his imminent "departure."

Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad (coincidentally born on September 11) is a different animal. His leadership means instability in the region, for which American farmers are paying at the gas pumps, and with which Russian members of parliament are balancing the books. So, if the case of Syrian nation's slaughter is monetarily good for Russia, why would the Chinese go along? After all, they import oil as well. That's where many reporters (and Secretary Clinton) forget a small detail of a very large transaction that took place seven years ago.

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Just last week the horrific massacre of 116 people (including 49 children) in Houla, Syria, led us to wonder if the massacre would mark a turning point in Western understanding of the conflict.

Now there's another massacre for us to contemplate.

Sources have told Reuters about a massacre in the central province of Hama today, with 78 people killed.

At least 40 of those are said to be women and children.

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Houla massacre in Syria has drawn international attention and humanitarian groups are now calling for western intervention to end the bloody civil war.

However, rebels have strong support from “al-Qaida and radical Islamists “ which presents a clear conflict of interests for the U.S.

Here’s an interview with Florida Congressman Allen West and Newsmax, on America’s role in the Syrian conflict and the global implications of intervention.

’That’s how they do business, and so if we’re going to go in there, we need to go in with very clear rules of engagement if we’re going to get Bashar al-Assad out of there,’ warned West, who had been posted in several combat zones.

‘But understand, you’ll be starting World War III.’

While diplomatic sanctions do not appear to be effective, there is also not a clear alternative to Assad’s government. The Syrian freedom fighters are widely considered by Middle East experts to be fractured and disorganized.

‘On one side you have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Russia and also Bashar al-Assad,’ West explained. ‘On the other side, you have freedom fighters. You have al-Qaida and radical Islamists. And also you have the backing of the state of Turkey.’

He pointed to recent experiences with Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood, is now threatening to bring Sharia law to the country, and Libya, which has been plunged into chaos since the death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi late last year.

‘If you start to interject yourself in a means other than diplomatic who’s side are you on? We don’t need to put our military in a situation where they’re caught in a cross-fire,’ insisted West.”

Read more posts on Sovereign Man »

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

JABAL AL-ZAWIYA, Syria — At the Free Syrian Army base here, a group of men led a nervous prisoner from his cell to a car waiting outside. A few hours later, the rebels returned alone, with a trunkload of weapons.

As they loaded the store room with new bullets and rocket-propelled grenades, Hamza Fatahallah, an army defector who joined the Free Syrian Army nine months ago, described the transaction that had taken place.

“We have caught many army prisoners,” he said. “We send them back home for a small amount of money on the condition they do not return to the regime. We use the money to buy weapons.”

For the release of this prisoner, Ahmed Haseeba, the group received $500. With this money, Fatahallah said they were able to buy ammunition from their main supplier: Syria’s national army, also known as the enemy.

More from GlobalPost inside Syria: Video: Bloodshed mocks UN peace plan

This strange cycle of exchanging prisoners for weapons has been playing out between rebel forces and President Bashar al-Assad’s army since the beginning of the revolution.

Fatahallah estimated that his village purchased 40 percent of their weapons from the regime. Prisoner exchanges have so far contributed almost $80,000 toward weapons purchases, he said. And they obtain an additional 50 percent of their weapons during battle. The remaining 10 percent are donated and smuggled from outside the country, or are purchased from private merchants, mostly from Iraq.

Occasionally, prisoners are also exchanged directly for weapons, Fatahallah said. They have received up to two Kalashnikov rifles in exchange for a prisoner in the past.

For the regime, or at least the duplicitous members of it, supplying the enemy is a big business. Government officers also sell Kalashnikov bullets, which typically sold for less than 40 cents before the uprising, for about $4 each, according to Ahmed Al Sheikh, the leader of the armed opposition in Jabal al-Zawiya. He leads about 6,000 men from eight battalions that are collectively known as the Sham Falcons.

Kalashnikovs are bought for about $1,000, he said. Rocket-propelled grenade launchers, complete with a set of four rockets, cost up to $4,000, as does a BKT machine gun.

“These officers sell to us not because they love the revolution but because they love money,” Al Sheikh said of his chain of suppliers. “Their loyalty is to their pockets only, not the regime.”

More from GlobalPost inside Syria: Syria's walking wounded

While most of the sellers are corrupt officers, they said lower ranking soldiers have occasionally stolen supplies from government weapons storage and sold them to the rebel forces.

The relationship is not always a smooth one.

Back at the base, the men were relaxing after lunch when a loud explosion shocked everyone to their feet. As they feared, the previous night’s purchase of Kalashnikov bullets had been booby-trapped. This time their colleagues were lucky enough to survive the discovery.

The men had learned from prior experience — bullets acquired from the regime are sometimes emptied of their gunpowder and filled with TNT designed to destroy the Kalashnikov and its owner, rather than the enemy.

After several injuries and the loss of two rifles, the men had learned to spot the fakes. To everyone’s relief this had been a controlled explosion, by someone suspicious of the new batch. The damage inflicted was only a blackened hand, some singed hair and a hole in the table.

“These ones here are good bullets,” said battalion leader Asad Ibrahim, showing the red marking on the base of one of the bullets. Holding up another with a slightly darker red off-center mark he said, “These are Bashar’s bullets to explode our guns.”

The men said bullets like these have destroyed many guns and killed or seriously injured several of their fellow fighters. But desperate for ammunition, they take the risk.

More from GlobalPost inside Syria: Chaos prevails as both sides blatantly ignore UN peace plan

Commander Al Sheikh said that half of the Sham Falcon arsenal are seized from the enemy. Most are taken either during battle, or after attacks on government checkpoints. And the rebels carry out organized raids on government weapon stores whenever they can.

During an attack on a checkpoint in Mughara last week, Al Sheikh proudly boasted that his men had managed a rare grab: a T62 tank along with anti-aircraft weapons.

Another source of arms is from the army defectors themselves, who bring their own weapons along when they join the rebel forces.

Sitting at the base, the men laughed as they recalled the story of two friends, both defectors, who told their superior they needed one of the gun-mounted vehicles and some heavy weapons to check on a call regarding rebel activity. Loading the truck with as much ammunition and weapons as they could find, they drove straight toward the rebels, checking in by radio with their boss with stories of hunting down “rebel traitors” hours after they had already betrayed sides.

While the Free Syrian Army has been adept at obtaining weapons, it has also proven skillful in manufacturing their own.

In a secret warehouse across town from the base, fertilizer and sugar were being boiled in a large pot. Everything from teapots to large metal pipes were being filled to make roadside bombs for attacks on tanks and army vehicles. 23mm bullet casings were filled with explosives with a small wick on top, looking more like an ACME special from a Loony Tunes cartoon than a deadly hand grenade.

"We are using very simple weapons against the highly sophisticated weapons of the regime — tanks, rockets, missiles. What a government! What a regime. Doing nothing but killing their people,” Fatahallah said during a tour of the busy workshop.

The men from the battalion spoke constantly of the need, not for military intervention from abroad, but for international help in obtaining more weapons. But with or without this support, they vowed to continue the fight until Assad is removed.

“The Quran says to prepare whatever weapons you can to fight your enemy,” said Al Sheikh, the commander, as his local leaders discussed preparations for their next mission.

“Even if no weapons are available and all we have left to use are stones, we will go on with our revolution until Assad falls.”

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

This week's cartoons show two crises that continue to get worse despite outside efforts to help.

Greece is free falling while leaders scramble to come up with a master plan.

There is no grand plan in Syria even though women and children are being slaughtered.

Obama watches as the world economy could dash his re-election hopes.

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

The recent massacres of women and children taking place in Syria are the work of a group of steroid-fueled mercenaries who are fiercely loyal to Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect, reports Lee Moran of the Daily Mail. 

Known as the Shabiha, or "Ghosts" in Arabic, the group wears black t-shirts with combat trousers and wields AK-47s and machetes.

The foot soldiers are paid a relative fortune of about $200 per day to enter towns after the army has stopped shelling to "terrorize the civilian population and conduct ethnic cleansing," according to a Daily Mail source.

From the Telegraph:

"They were like monsters... [said Dr. Mousab Azzawi, who runs the Syrian Network for Human Rights from London but had treated some of the Shabiha in Latakia]. "They had huge muscles, big bellies, big beards. They were all very tall and frightening, and took steroids to pump up their bodies.

"I had to talk to them like children as they like people with low intelligence. But that is what makes them so terrifying — the combination of strength and blind allegiance to the regime."

The Shabiha is accused of carrying out the Houla massacre — in which 108 civilians including 49 children were killed by slitting their throats or shooting them at point-blank range — as well as incidents last week in which 12 workers were executed in Qusayr and 78 villagers were killed in the central province of Hama.

Dr. Azzawi cited a YouTube video that shows pictures from one alleged member's Facebook page alongside videos of the group beating people in the streets.

Almost all of the Shabiha are young men from the mostly-poor Alawite sect, a Shia Muslim sect comprising 12 percent of Syria's population that includes the Assad family.

A woman named Selma, who is from a prominent Alawite family and whose cousins are Shabiha, told Harriet Alexander and Ruth Sherlock of the Telegraph that even before the revolution the Shabiha would quell anti-government unrest by going into the streets and breaking people's arms and legs.

From the Telegraph:

"They are fueled by this belief that they are fighting for their survival," said Dr. Azzawi. "Assad tells them that they must defend the government or else they will be destroyed; it's kill, or be killed... They are treated like animals, and manipulated by their bosses to carry out these murders. They are unstoppable."

The vast majority of the country's top intelligence and military officers adhere to the mysterious Alawite faith while the Shabiha, when called upon, ruthlessly protects the regime without directly associating themselves with the government as they dress in civilian clothes and wear white tennis shoes instead of black military boots.

"If they know the whole area is against the regime they have no problem killing everybody," Selma told the Telegraph. "That is how it works."

ALSO SEE: New Developments Come To Light As We Retrace The Chilling Route Of Alleged Murderer Staff Sgt. Robert Bales >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Russia is sending combat helicopters into Syria, according to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

Clinton said the U.S. is concerned as the helicopters "will escalate the conflict quite dramatically," reports the AP.

The uprising in Syria against President Al-Assad's government has been down-spiraling into a civil war. 

Russia's deployment of helicopters suggests it is willing to be condemned for defending the Syrian government, which has been blasted by the international community for violence against its own people. 

The AP points out this turn of events follows Russia's previous statements saying it wouldn't supply weapons to the Syrian government to shut down the uprising. Secretary Clinton is now trying to persuade Russia to join the U.S. in promoting a "political transition" in Syria instead of supplying military hardware that could escalate the conflict.

We recently reported the Pentagon stating "We get paid to be ready" in response to questions about U.S. preparedness concerning the deteriorating situation in Syria, which has been characterized by massacres and horrific bloodshed.

Now see why Russia's new T-50 fighter jet will never compete with the Allied F-35 >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Syria is using a new currency printed in Russia to pay its soaring deficit, reports Suleiman Al-Khalidi of Reuters. 

Four Damascus-based bankers told Reuters that the new cash has entered circulation because international sanctions have derailed oil exports and other government revenues. 

Consequently, the central bank has exceeded borrowing limits from public banks while private banks are reluctant to buy government bonds.

The government's biggest priority is paying the salaries of over 2 million state employees (among a workforce of 4.5 million in a country of more than 21 million) so that the public sector doesn't collapse.

One banker told Reuters this was a "last resort."

Russia is also sending attack helicopters to Syria.

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Rhetoric about Russian weapons transfers so Syria is stirring up, following U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's announcement that Moscow is sending in attack helicopters that "will escalate the conflict quite dramatically."

Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is defending his country's weapons sales to Syria and denies that the transfers have anything to do with helping the Syrian government shut down an increasingly violent civil uprising, reports Reuters.

"We are not violating any international law in performing these contracts," he clarified to reporters at a news conference during a current visit to Iran. He said that Moscow is fulfilling previously-made weapons contracts for air defense systems.

Clinton has described Moscow's claim that weapons transfers to Syria are unrelated to the present conflict as "Patently untrue." The unrest in Syria has raged for over a year, since it began in March 2011.

The Journal reports Lavrov saying that Russian weapons are not intended to be used on "peaceful demonstrators." That of course suggests that the weapons could still be used for those deemed "not peaceful".

But he said, "I have announced time and again that our stance is not based on support for Bashar al-Assad or anyone else ... We don't want to see Syria disintegrate." It's worth noting, as CBS points out, that Syria hosts Russia's only naval base on the Mediterranean Sea.

Russia also used the news conference as an opportunity to accuse the U.S. of supplying weapons to Syrian opposition forces. 

"They are providing arms and weapons to the Syrian opposition that can be used in fighting against the Damascus government [the seat of Syrian government]."

The main opposition group — known as the Syrian National Council — told the NY Times that they've "recently received more powerful anti-tank missiles from Turkey, with the financial support of Saudi Arabia and Qatar." The group says President Assad's loyal forces have been deploying fiercer air assaults lately because opposition fighters are proving stronger than expected.

We reported earlier that the White House will not provide any official details about the aircraft, saying the information is classified, but Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby acknowledged to Reuters: "We know that the Assad regime is using helicopter gunships against their own people."

And the Pentgon boldly said yesterday that "It's time for President Assad to go" along with harsh criticism of "deplorable and disgusting" violence in Syria.

Now see how Russia's next generation fighter jet compares to the American F-35 >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Yesterday, the Institute for Economics and Peace released their annual Global Peace Index (GPI), ranking 158 nations based on their levels of peacefulness.

Click here to see the top 15 countries >

The good news is that, for the first time since 2009 the world has improved its levels of peacefulness and it's nice that Sub-Saharan Africa is no longer the least peaceful region.

There was bad news for the USA, which ranks way down the list at 88 (below places like Greece, Serbia and Cuba), and for Syria, who saw the biggest fall, dropping more than 30 spots.

NOTE: The rankings and GPI scores were calculated using 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators. To achieve a low score (and thus a lower ranking), the index looked for low levels of internal conflict, cohesive integrated populations, efficient and accountable governments, high levels of regional integration, high enrollment and attendance in primary and secondary schools, low levels of corruption, freedom of the press, and respect for human rights.

#15 Germany

GPI Score: 1.4

2011 Rank: 15

Source: Institute for Economics and Peace

#14 Sweden

GPI Score: 1.4

2011 Rank: 13 

Source: Institute for Economics and Peace

#13 Czech Republic

GPI Score: 1.4

2011 Rank: 5

Source: Institute for Economics and Peace

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Yesterday afternoon CNN aired a series of heartbreaking images from Syria: Gruesome close-ups of toddlers alleged to have been killed by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.

I looked up from my desk, and a wave of nausea and anger washed over me as a I saw the body of a little girl in a party dress. The images were twinned to a UN report that alleges 1,000 children were killed in Syria last year, largely by the regime, and that kids had also been subjected to sexual assaults and torture by security forces.

But then I started thinking. How often had I seen on CNN the broken bodies of children killed in Iraq during the US occupation, or by NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan, or by drone strikes in Pakistan? The answer I came up with from my own recollections was "never." I asked around the newsroom, and most folks there agreed.

The point is not to draw equivalencies, but simply to point out the implied argument made by the unusual choice to show these murdered kids: A special horror is unfolding in Syria, and the world (read, the US) must do something to stop it.

Perhaps the world should. But far less explored are the practicalities of military intervention, the risks that horrors as great or greater await by widening Syria's civil war into an international conflict. For now, a simple narrative is being spun of a depraved Assad and his helpless victims. Serving that cause yesterday were claims from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Russia was rushing deliveries of attack helicopters to Assad's army "which will escalate the conflict quite dramatically."

Russia is denying that claim, saying it's only repairing MI-24 (Hind) gunships which were sold to Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez, more than a decade ago. Either way, such helicopters would be more useful for fighting the Free Syrian Army or other armed rebel groups than targeting civilians. Syria has thousands of tanks, mortars, and artillery pieces and 600,000 soldiers who are the main threat to civilian population centers.

So if you were for, or against, going to war with Syria before the claims were made about the helicopters, your thinking shouldn't be shifted. And make no mistake, the longer Syria's war goes on, the greater the likelihood that President Assad will follow in his father's footsteps with a truly horrific massacre. In 1982, Assad the elder had at least 10,000 residents of the city of Hama killed in an atrocity that ended an Islamist uprising against his Baath regime.

In the US, there are surprising signs of support for a US intervention. A Monitor/TIPP poll conducted from June 1 to June 8 found that 15 percent of Americans think the US should "take the lead" in a military intervention in Syria and that 19 percent think the US should "lead from behind encouraging and bolstering military action by many countries but not driving it." The poll's margin of error was plus/minus 3.3 percentage points.

While the most popular answers were the US should not get involved militarily (29 percent) or only if "no ground campaign is involved" (27 percent), it's surprising that 34 percent of Americans are willing to consider a direct military engagement in another Middle Eastern country when the war in Iraq just ended and the war in Afghanistan continues. More atrocities in Syria will surely tip the needle closer to public support.

Many opinion makers are pushing for a US-initiated invasion as soon as possible, from the neocon John Bolton to the influential columnist and liberal interventionist Nick Kristof. Mr. Kristof offers an emotion-laden, moralistic call to arms over Syria (and Sudan) while ignoring the uncomfortable question of whether that really serves American interests.

The reliably hawkish Mr. Bolton at least tries to make the case. He argues in a piece for the National Review this week that President Barack Obama should ignore the concerns of some that unilateral action could put the US at loggerheads with Russia, and undermine whatever slim hopes that negotiations with Iran (another key backer of Mr. Assad) over its nuclear program could succeed. In fact, he seems to relish the prospect.

First, he regrets that President George W. Bush didn't extend the war in Iraq to Syria in 2003. He writes: "In the days just after Saddam’s ouster in 2003, conditions were optimal (if nonetheless imperfect) for overthrowing Assad and replacing his regime with something compatible with American interests."

Then he asserts that since Syria is close to Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah in Lebanon that "regime change in Syria is prima facie in America’s interest, as well as the interests of Israel and our Arab friends in the region."

Then he suggest a broader conflict might be a good idea: "Significantly, US intervention could not be confined to Syria and would inevitably entail confronting Iran and possibly Russia," he writes. "This the Obama administration is unwilling to do, although it should."

Does he remember what happened the last time he successfully led the charge for a US-led war in the Middle East?

Saddam Hussein was among the most vicious tyrants of the last half of the twentieth century, which is saying something. Bolton and others pushed hard for a war they promised would be quick and cheap and would transform Iraq into a prosperous bastion of democracy that would serve as a beacon for the region. Instead, half a million Iraqis died as the country became a magnet for Al Qaeda-style jihaddis and a sectarian civil war broke out that tens of thousands of US troops could do little to contain. The cost to the US was somewhere north of $1 trillion, not to mention the nearly 5,000 US soldiers who died and countless more who lost their health and limbs.

Today, violence is far down from the peak of the war, but terrorism is a sort of background radiation seeded there by the war and that continues to ooze through the Iraqi nation. Today's sectarian car-bomb attacks against Shiite pilgrims in at least four different Iraqi cities, which killed at least 65 people, are just the latest outrage. The US government estimates that 13,600 people were killed in terrorist attacks in Iraq in 2007. Last year, that number dropped to 3,063, but that was still high enough to place Iraq second, after Afghanistan, in the annual terrorism death toll.

The Iraqi central government remains split between hostile Shiite and Sunni factions. Basic service delivery such as medical care and electricity remains poor. Corruption and torture by the police and politically motivated prosecutions remain commonplace. Between one-half and two-thirds of Iraq's ancient Christian community have been driven out of the country since 2003. And a regime that was a staunch opponent of Iran (the country that Bolton promises will inevitably need to be confronted in the event of war in Syria) has been replaced with one that is friendly to it.

And while the violence unfolding in Syria is heart-wrenching, it isn't currently directed at the US. The Iraq war drew in jihadis from around the Middle East, eager to kill US soldiers in the name of Islam. Hundreds of Sunni jihadis have already entered Syria from the Middle East and South Asia to fight Assad's Alawite dominated regime. The Alawites are an offshoot of Shiite Islam that Sunni jihadis view as apostates, and they're eager to replace the Baath regime with an Islamic caliphate, just like the one they foolishly believed they could impose on Iraq. US boots on the ground and supporters of Al Qaeda have traditionally been a volatile combination.

A US-led effort to oust Assad? If the US made it a priority, there is little doubt that could be accomplished relatively quickly (just as in the case of Saddam Hussein). What comes next? Just as unpredictable and dangerous.

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel for the Syrian people or ponder a righteous war to save the country from more pain. But sound decisions aren't made from emotion. And actions from the best of intentions can sometimes lead to outcomes as grim or grimmer than any now currently imagined.

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Cornell professor David Siddhartha Patel teaches comparative politics with a focus on Middle Eastern politics, Islamic institutions, and political culture.

He's been watching the violence in Syria unfold and doesn't see it letting up any time soon.

“The bloodshed is Syria is likely to get worse – perhaps much worse – in the coming weeks and months, and there is little the United States or the wider international community can do to prevent it," Patel said in a press release. "We are watching the beginning of a protracted and bloody civil war in Syria that will likely last several years.

Patel notes that the Syrian opposition has not been able to unify protesters and the various rebel groups, and thus has not been able to reach a consensus on how to respond to the escalating violence on civilians.

Knowing this, Bashar al-Assad's regime has been able to employ loyal elements of the Syrian military to shell cities as well as "brutal irregular militias" such as the Shabia while leaving fractured rebel groups to control isolated pockets of the country.  

“Almost any intervention by the U.S. would eventually demand “boots on the ground” in Syria, and the situation on that ground would look more like Iraq did in 2007 than Libya did in 2011.”

ALSO SEE: Russia Is Printing Money For Syria To Pay Government Expenses >

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Josh Tucker from The Monkey Cage asked me to comment on the Russian helicopters supposedly heading to Syria. Here’s what I wrote:

Hillary Clinton's statement that Russia is supplying Syria with attack helicopters has stirred up a great deal of controversy, providing more ammunition (so to speak) to US domestic opponents of the Obama administration’s policy of normalization of relations with Russia.

This policy has already been damaged by Russian actions against domestic political protests, by serious disagreements over missile defense, and by the two countries’ diametrically opposed positions on the ongoing conflict in Syria.

In this post, I want to quickly address the specific question of Russian arms exports to Syria and then turn to the political impact of this most recent contretemps.

I have written before on Russian arms sales to Syria. Most of the recent contracts in this sphere have involved missiles of various kinds, as well as the modernization of tanks and fighter aircraft. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Russia has not sold any helicopters to Syria since the Soviet days. Although this is not evident from the SIPRI data, Russian sources indicate that a contract was concluded in 2005 for Russia to modernize Syria’s Soviet-made Mi-17 helicopters.

Russian media is speculating that US intelligence confused the return shipment of Syria’s own (newly modernized) helicopters for brand new helicopters that have been sold to Syria.

While I don’t have the information to come down definitively on one side or another of this debate, I would just say that it is generally very difficult for Russian arms exporters to conclude a major contract of this type in complete secrecy. It also takes time to make the helicopters, so any such contract would have had to have been concluded at least a year or two ago, when there would have been no need for secrecy.

There is I suppose some possibility that Russia is supplying Syria with helicopters from its own inventory, rather than newly built ones. But that seems relatively unlikely given the relative scarcity of good equipment in the Russian military after years of low procurement. So I would say that the most likely scenario is in fact that these helicopters are in fact modernized Syrian Mi-17s, rather than new ones secretly sold to Syria.

Regardless of the exact provenance of these helicopters, recent events and the rhetoric on both sides show that the conflict is rapidly heading in the direction of a civil war. Moreover, this would be a civil war with echoes of the proxy civil wars of the Cold War days, with Russia potentially arming the Assad regime while Western countries (and their Gulf State allies) arm the rebels. Such wars were fairly ubiquitous in the 1970s and 1980s, but have largely faded from our memory since the end of communism.

At the time, both superpowers were able to compartmentalize their relations in such a way as to continue negotiations on critical issues like arms control while fighting these proxy wars and engaging in rhetorical battles over the relative virtues of communism, capitalism, Western democracy and people’s democracy. It may be that leaders on both sides will soon need to relearn those compartmentalization skills so they can continue to cooperate on issues that are important for both sides (Afghanistan, counter-terrorism, counter-piracy, dealing with the rise of China) even as they take opposite sides in a likely civil war in Syria and engage in increasingly heated rhetoric about repression of grassroots protests (or, from the Putin government’s point of view—Western efforts to foment regime change) in Russia.

UPDATE: Actually, the helicopters are modernized Mi-24s. Not sure whether the Russian media reports were mistaken and the mid-2000s modernization contract was for Mi-24s rather than Mi-17s or if there were two separate contracts.

Now: These are the weapons facing any country that intervenes in Syria >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Max Fisher of the Atlantic points to this recently released video of an incredible scooter ride through Homs, the city in Syria that has seen near constant shelling for months now.

Homs is the same besieged that Channel 4 released a shocking video from in February. Officially there's no reporters allowed into city (though two have died there already), so whatever videos have made it out are generally smuggled out or posted online by Syrians in the city.

Most videos have shown a shocking level of destruction in the city, once the third largest in the country with almost 700,000 residents.

As Fisher notes, the video was posted by Beirut-based news site Sawtberuit.com last Friday and we have no way of verifying it, but there's no reason to doubt it at present.

WATCH:

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Syrian military has admitted to shooting down a Turkish fighter jet over the Mediterranean Friday, the BBC reported:

A Syrian military statement said that an "unidentified air target" had penetrated Syrian airspace from the west at 11:40 local time (08:40 GMT), traveling at very low altitude and at high speed.

It said that in line with the laws prevailing in such cases, Syrian air defenses engaged the craft, and scored a direct hit about 1km (0.6 miles) from its coastline.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul said an investigation would look into whether the plane, an F-4 Phantom, was downed in Turkish airspace, Reuters reports. 

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

This is interesting and perhaps worrisome...

Turkey has demanded that a NATO meeting be convened after one of its jets was shot down by Syria on Friday, the BBC reports.

The Turkish jet was shot down by Syria on Friday, and the first noises were that it was an accident of some sort, and was not an act of hostility. But it's becoming clear that Turkey isn't content to see it in that light.

This comes on top of the overall pressure on the international community to intervene in Syria due to the internal fighting.

(Via Dan Drezner)

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Since the beginning of anti-government protests in 2011, the Syrian government has arrested thousands of people, allegedly subjecting them to torture and imprisonment without due process.

A disturbing report released by the Human Rights Commission offers terrifying glimpses into the torture in these prisons. One prisoner tells the HRC:

"The guards hung me by my wrists from the ceiling for eight days. After a few days of hanging, being denied sleep, it felt like my brain stopped working. I was imagining things. My feet got swollen on the third day. I felt pain that I have never felt in my entire life. It was excruciating. I screamed that I needed to go to a hospital, but the guards just laughed at me."

Here's a graph showing how many prisoners are crammed into one cell compared with maximum occupancy in Europe:

And some terrifying stories and sketches:

The HRW also released a call to action for countries who can intervene.

DON'T MISS: Two Men Who Reportedly Tried To Hijack Plane Beaten To Death By Passengers >

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Friday, we read in the New York Times and elsewhere about one of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s most important supporters and allies having defected. The impression one gets is that Assad’s government is in a state of collapse— and this gives credibility to those pushing for Assad to turn over power.

But what the media are not mentioning is that Brigadier General Manaf Tlass did not defect directly from the Assad inner circle. He had already fallen into disfavor early in the uprising and lost his command in May 2011—14 months ago. If you had that additional piece of information, you would interpret the news reports in a totally different way.

When a piece of evidence that contradicts the overall impression is absent from the reportage, the reportage itself is almost worthless.

As are reports of horrific events without adequate fact-checking and follow-up. Remember the Houla massacre? Who carried that out?

Houla Whoops

The media told us that more than 100 people, including women and children, were brutally slaughtered at close range in the village of Houla in late May. The bloodshed, reported around the world, was ascribed to a militia, the Shabiha, which is loyal to Assad. Here’s an example, from the BBC website:

Survivors of the massacre in Syria’s Houla region have told the BBC of their shock and fear as regime forces entered their homes and killed their families….

[snip]

Most witnesses who spoke to the BBC said they believed that the army and shabiha militiamen were responsible.

“We were in the house, they went in, the shabiha and security, they went in with Kalashnikovs and automatic rifles,” said survivor Rasha Abdul Razaq.

Later, a dribble of accounts cast doubt on this, since the people killed were, by and large, themselves supporters of Assad. But few heard about these. The BBC report did not say who Rasha was, or provide any evidence that she actually was there, or that if she was, she had any basis for saying that the killers were identifiable as to their affiliation. BBC quoted one other source, who did not provide a name.  Despite the thinness of this material, the BBC story was picked up all over the world, and became perhaps the definitive account.

Hence, you probably were unaware of an article from the Frankfurter Allgemeine-Zeitung, a traditional and serious German newspaper for whom I’ve written in the past. It published a report a month ago from a correspondent who got eyewitness accounts from people who he says had visited the Houla area. The correspondent, Rainer Hermann, says that these eyewitnesses were Assad opponents, yet discovered that government backers were not responsible for the massacre.

Hermann’s sources described the events as follows: anti-Assad rebels attacked army roadblocks just outside Houla, which had been intended to protect villages, where the majority are members of Assad’s Alawi sect, from Sunni militias. The soldiers at the roadblocks, overwhelmed, called for backup, which led to a 90-minute battle, in which both sides sustained extensive fatalities.

It was in this time frame that the unidentified militias entered Houla.

As Hermann wrote June 7:

“According to eyewitness accounts…those killed were almost exclusively from families belonging to Houla’s Alawi and Shia minorities. Over 90% of Houla’s population are Sunnis. Several dozen members of a family were slaughtered, which had converted from Sunni to Shia Islam. Members of the Shomaliya, an Alawi family, were also killed, as was the family of a Sunni member of the Syrian parliament who is regarded as a collaborator. Immediately following the massacre, the perpetrators are supposed to have filmed their victims and then presented them as Sunni victims in videos posted on the internet.

…”Their findings contradict allegations of the rebels, who had blamed the Shabiha militias which are close to the regime.”

Thus, Hermann seemingly was able to do something that most of the Western reporters have been unable to do: find opponents of Assad who nevertheless may be willing to provide accounts that do not serve their own interests.

Of course, we could do with more information on Hermann’s sources. How do we know they were really in Houla? How do we know they are really opponents of Assad, not just pretending to be? Their story of inter-communal strikes makes more sense than the one that went around the world and turned so many people who had not been paying attention into supporters of toppling Assad. But nevertheless, everyone needs to provide more detail so we can try to ascertain what is true.

Almost all of the accounts in major news organization stories are characterized as being from the opposition, almost all portray everything as caused solely by the regime, and almost all add the disclaimer that the information “could not be independently verified.”

Talking Turkey

Though conventional journalism likes to advertise that it is “objective” and doesn’t take sides, I don’t recall hearing much from the Syrian regime’s point of view, beyond general and unconvincing denials following reports of regime wrongdoing. One almost gets the impression that the Syrian government does not wish to be heard.

But that turns out not to be the case.

With Syria’s neighbor Turkey increasingly the leading edge for NATO on toppling Assad, it’s interesting that a Turkish newspaper was willing to hear what the Syrian leader had to say:

In an interview with the Turkish daily Cumhuriyet, Bashar Assad went after Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan with an extraordinarily interesting critique. A version translated into English by the Syrian news agency, SANA, shows Assad  stressing his goodwill toward the Turkish people in the  first part of the interview, then raising questions about the motives of the alliance seeking to overthrow him:

Assad: …. Today, Erdogan is shedding the tears of hypocrites for the Syrian people. Why hasn’t he cried for those killed in some Gulf countries, although they are innocent, peaceful and unarmed? Why isn’t he speaking about democracy in some Gulf countries?

Journalist: Which country?

Assad: Qatar, for instance. Why didn’t he do anything after the Marmara ship incident except shouting? Why did he challenge Israel, and then suddenly agreed to deploy the missile shield in Turkey? Did he deploy it in order to protect Turkey from the attack of a hostile country? Did America build these bases in order to protect itself against this region? Which country in the region has the capability to threaten America? No country.

          [snip]

You don’t have to be a fan of Assad (and who is?) to find it worthwhile to read his comments.  Hearing, almost for the first time, from the other side in a conflict gives one a rush—reminds me of a rule we were taught in journalism school but which never seemed to come up again, except in the most superficial ways :To find out what is really going on, make a real effort to speak to both sides.

All Hillary, All the Time

While the Western media simply ignores statements from the Syrian establishment, it functions as the flip side of the Syrian government press agency, publishing a relentless stream of declarations from the establishment trying to bring Assad down. For example, again from The Times, Hillary Clinton’s well-covered remarks on Tlass:

Later at a news conference, Mrs. Clinton said that General Tlass’s reported defection and those of other senior military officials had sent a powerful message that Mr. Assad’s government was on its way out. She described General Tlass as “a very close and longtime ally” of Mr. Assad and his father.

So what you have is Hillary Clinton being willing to distort the Tlass development, and the media only too happy to go along.

There’s a growing body of evidence/ that we Americans are being lied to by our government, with nary a peep from the people’s representatives in the press. That’s one development, sadly, that really is not news.

 # #

  WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on it. But can we count on you? We cannot do our work without your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.

GRAPHIC: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vUXldS6WpUo/TzsncXd5h5I/AAAAAAAAAfI/xC_VdNCt3m8/s1600/syria_picnik.jpg

Read more posts on WhoWhatWhy »

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »