2011-11-27
Syrian Contract
Open Letter to Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia
Dear Julia,
I am writing to you as an Australian citizen and taxpayer. As you know, the Syrian people have been living under Assad's oppression for decades. The reality of automatic weapons is that they are not able to overthrow their government without some sort of military coup. The Libyans were similarly unable to, even though they managed to free Benghazi. The reality of modern warfare is that the guy with the best weapons will win, and in Syria at the moment, that is Assad.
As an Australian, I do not think it is fair that I should have lived in a democracy my whole life, while others have been under a dictatorship their whole life. I would like others to have the same freedoms and human rights that I get here. I am thus writing to you to request that the Australian military be deployed to Syria to wage a war of liberation. I also request that you take the lead in assembling a coalition by asking other governments to participate in the war.
I realise that war is an inherently dangerous business, and the people holding signs saying "HELP" presumably realise that too. Through the miracle of the internet I have been able to directly negotiate with some of those Syrians on a mutually acceptable contract governing the terms of the liberation. An ideological ally of mine has signed off on the Syrian side, where they take responsibility for the inherent dangers of war.
Not everyone in Syria is an ideological ally of mine. First, not everyone is against Assad. Secondly, not everyone wants foreign intervention. Thirdly, not everyone is willing to take responsibility via this contract for any side-effects of foreign intervention (although they may be willing to sign some variation of it). But those people are not my ideological allies. I am after the war to help my ideological allies, not my opponents.
As per the section of the contract that I signed myself, I expect the Australian government and military to wage the war a certain way. Please assist me in living up to my end of that agreement.
I can understand if you are hesitant to go to war because you're unsure what percentage of the population supports it. The difficulty of getting such a poll is one of the reasons why I think we should just assume worst case - that lots of our ideological allies are being oppressed - and go ahead.
I also understand if you are hestitant to go to war because of Russian opposition. The Russians may react badly to one of their client states being liberated. An example of something they could do is stop the supply route to Afghanistan. This would be particularly disturbing due to the fragility of the Pakistan supply route. If both supply routes are blocked, I would suggest that it is time to liberate Iran also. Or possibly even abandon Afghanistan, as the Afghan government forces are already way superior to the opposition Taliban, so by rights they should win eventually, even if it does take a more tortuous route to victory. At the end of the day I am reluctant to keep my Syrian allies in chains due to Russian blackmail.
For a specific "liberation plan" I assume our military will be able to come up with something suitable. However, in order to minimize the coalition footprint in Syria, I'd suggest establishing (mainly from the air) a buffer zone inside Syria and allow elements of the Free Syrian Army to cross from Turkey back into that buffer zone, where they can be airdropped weapons. So long as there is a method whereby Syrian soldiers (or ex-soldiers) can sign up, and fight under air cover, they should be able to do the job themselves. If things don't work out that well, the contract allows the use of ground forces as well. Ground forces may cause some noses to be bent out of shape, but it's unlikely that the average Syrian is going to actively oppose them. Just get in there, topple Assad, reuse the old military, then leave, and we'll leave the quibbling for global citizenry to hash out amongst themselves.
Thankyou for considering this request.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Edwards.
|
Dear Julia,
I am writing to you as an Australian citizen and taxpayer. As you know, the Syrian people have been living under Assad's oppression for decades. The reality of automatic weapons is that they are not able to overthrow their government without some sort of military coup. The Libyans were similarly unable to, even though they managed to free Benghazi. The reality of modern warfare is that the guy with the best weapons will win, and in Syria at the moment, that is Assad.
As an Australian, I do not think it is fair that I should have lived in a democracy my whole life, while others have been under a dictatorship their whole life. I would like others to have the same freedoms and human rights that I get here. I am thus writing to you to request that the Australian military be deployed to Syria to wage a war of liberation. I also request that you take the lead in assembling a coalition by asking other governments to participate in the war.
I realise that war is an inherently dangerous business, and the people holding signs saying "HELP" presumably realise that too. Through the miracle of the internet I have been able to directly negotiate with some of those Syrians on a mutually acceptable contract governing the terms of the liberation. An ideological ally of mine has signed off on the Syrian side, where they take responsibility for the inherent dangers of war.
Not everyone in Syria is an ideological ally of mine. First, not everyone is against Assad. Secondly, not everyone wants foreign intervention. Thirdly, not everyone is willing to take responsibility via this contract for any side-effects of foreign intervention (although they may be willing to sign some variation of it). But those people are not my ideological allies. I am after the war to help my ideological allies, not my opponents.
As per the section of the contract that I signed myself, I expect the Australian government and military to wage the war a certain way. Please assist me in living up to my end of that agreement.
I can understand if you are hesitant to go to war because you're unsure what percentage of the population supports it. The difficulty of getting such a poll is one of the reasons why I think we should just assume worst case - that lots of our ideological allies are being oppressed - and go ahead.
I also understand if you are hestitant to go to war because of Russian opposition. The Russians may react badly to one of their client states being liberated. An example of something they could do is stop the supply route to Afghanistan. This would be particularly disturbing due to the fragility of the Pakistan supply route. If both supply routes are blocked, I would suggest that it is time to liberate Iran also. Or possibly even abandon Afghanistan, as the Afghan government forces are already way superior to the opposition Taliban, so by rights they should win eventually, even if it does take a more tortuous route to victory. At the end of the day I am reluctant to keep my Syrian allies in chains due to Russian blackmail.
For a specific "liberation plan" I assume our military will be able to come up with something suitable. However, in order to minimize the coalition footprint in Syria, I'd suggest establishing (mainly from the air) a buffer zone inside Syria and allow elements of the Free Syrian Army to cross from Turkey back into that buffer zone, where they can be airdropped weapons. So long as there is a method whereby Syrian soldiers (or ex-soldiers) can sign up, and fight under air cover, they should be able to do the job themselves. If things don't work out that well, the contract allows the use of ground forces as well. Ground forces may cause some noses to be bent out of shape, but it's unlikely that the average Syrian is going to actively oppose them. Just get in there, topple Assad, reuse the old military, then leave, and we'll leave the quibbling for global citizenry to hash out amongst themselves.
Thankyou for considering this request.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Edwards.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 13:43 
