www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Syrian Bishop Warns Intervention Could Spark 'World War'

Syrian Bishop Warns Intervention Could Spark 'World War'

Assyrian International News Agency
Posted 8-26-2013
http://www.aina.org/news/20130826144027.htm

(AFP) -- A Syrian Chaldean Catholic bishop on Monday warned that an armed intervention in Syria could unleash a "world war", while the Vatican's official newspaper called for more "prudence" from Western powers.

"If there is an armed intervention, that would mean, I believe, a world war. That risk has returned," Monsignor Antoine Audo of Aleppo told Vatican radio.

"We hope that the pope's call for real dialogue between the warring parties to find a solution can be a first step to stop the fighting," he said.

Audo is also the head of the Syrian arm of the international Catholic charity Caritas and has repeatedly warned about the human cost of the war.

The Vatican daily, L'Osservatore Romano, meanwhile criticised Western powers in an editorial.

"The drumbeat of an armed intervention by Western powers is becoming ever more insistent and ever less restrained by prudence," it said.

"Several representatives of these countries say they are convinced that the accusation that the Syrian army used chemical weapons is founded -- a question which the United Nations is investigating," he said.

Pope Francis on Sunday called for the international community to help find a solution to the civil war.

"I launch an appeal to the international community to be more sensitive to this tragic situation and to commit itself to the maximum to help the dear Syrian nation find a solution to a war which spreads destruction and death," he said.

Indeed a frightening situation...

Not bloody likely. It takes two to make a world war, and I don't see anybody who wants to play.

What about the possibility of a chain reaction of events? Someone on the radio was saying if we decide to attack it might set off retaliations against Israel by its enemies. And Russia seems to have given us a warning as well.

Spot on, Desertman! As we speak, Russia is sending warships to the Mediterranean region.

While I am not a pessimist or doom and gloom person, I think that some folk here are way to optimistic.

I'm certainly not in love with Dr Bashar, but neither am I in love with the so-called rebels, particularly since the latter have been co-opted by salafist and takfiri elements. Fortunately, some influential people, including the Chairman of the Joint chiefs, Marty Dempsey, (with whom I actually went to high school), and the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, understand the latter. And it's a very important point.

That said, a targeted intervention in Syria would probably not spur a major problem. And by "targeted" I mean just that: storage facilities for WMDs, etc. Anything focused on "regime change" however (remember Iraq 2003) would be a huge blunder, and one from which the entire world may not escape.

I have to add here that what Rome says on the matter is of no interest to me: they've stuck their nose in Middle Eastern politics far too many times with little knowledge or forethought.

I hope you're right. I've heard some pretty scary scenarios going around. As Alice said, 12 Russian warships have been deployed. They, along with Iran are not going to take this sitting down, and if they do anything it's expected China will have their back.
The U.S. is way overconfident. At the same time we are divided and heavily distracted. Our morale is low. The rest of the world knows we are in a weak state and unprepared for a major war right now. Let's just hope they don't see this as an opportunity to teach us a lesson.

I totally agree with you. We present our reasons for intervention in such simplistic form to appease the masses; ie: we are doing it for moral reasons to help people, but in reality there are complicated geopolitics going on, and quite frankly, I think that we should butt out.

I agree with both of you, and am very concerned about the direction we're moving in.

I find your excursions into strategic analysis mildly amusing, like watching little kids playing at grown-up games.

Dear Stuart,

Since you are the grown up and we are mere juvenile idiots, why don't you enlighten us?

Regards,
Alice

After our government's "certainty" about WMD in Hussein's Iraq, I've just lost confidence about this kind of stuff. If our intelligence has proven unreliable before, is it worth the risk? Sounds like someone's trying to sucker us into a battle we don't need.

As a Pastor of the catholic (universal, global) Church my starting point is not one of strategic interests but of the sufferings of part of the Body of Christ.

So the fundamental question is: Will the Christians of Syria be better off under Assad or under the Muslim Brotherhood?

I have, many times. I will only point out that, after thirty five years as a military historian and defense analyst who has worked for the Department of Defense, the armed services, the intelligence community, allied ministries of defense, and the aerospace and defense industry, that "counting ships" without knowing about those ships, and believing that Russia would interpose them between Syria and the U.S. Sixth Fleet is absurd. The idea that any engagement between the United States and the Syrian armed forces would not end in the same manner as an engagement between the United States and the Iraqi armed forces is absurd. The notion that the world will go to war over Assad is absurd. And the idea that it we should just allow the Syrian army to use chemical weapons is both absurd and morally repugnant. Worse, still, the notion that we should stay out of Syria if the rebels used chemical weapons (highly unlikely as that is) is an exercise in self-delusion: if the rebels have chemical weapons, it means that terrorists have chemical weapons. What will you do when one of them imports a gallon or so of Sarin into the United States (and if you think that's impossible, consider how many kilos of cocaine enter the country each year, or how many millions of illegal cigarettes). Either way, the time to sit on our thumbs is long since past.

As for Vatican spokesmen, go back a century or so, and it would have been the Holy See pleading for the Great Powers to go into Syria to rescue the Christians--really, the only reason the Christian community survived through the 19th and 20th centuries in the first place.

And for Thomas the Seeker--the Muslim Brotherhood isn't in Syria. Elements of Hamas are, as well as al Qaeda and some other Sunni Islamist factions, but they do not represent the majority of the opposition. Assad, on the other hand, is being propped up by Iran and Hezbollah. Assad historically has shown no great love for Christians who don't kiss his rump, which is why the Maronites might have a different story about Syrian tolerance than Melkites. And Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, has been waging an existential war against Christians in that country for a generation. So, if Assad DOES win, he'll be in hock to two powers that have no love for Christians at all. If we do nothing, one extremist group or the other will win--after hundreds of thousands more deaths (most of whom, to date, have been innocent Sunni Muslim civilians--it's entirely solipsistic to say this war is about Christians. But if we do get involved--as we should have, more than a year ago--they we have the potential to ensure that extremists on neither side gain power, and there might be some hope for a lasting peace. But it will be messy and bloody--messier and bloodier than needs be--because we have dithered so long.

I really don't want to get too involved in this thread, but at the same time feel the need to make a few additional comments.

We've all seen how that misguided invasion turned out, haven't we? Yes, a "victory" (if one wants to call it that) that, for one thing, seems to mean "bye bye Chaldeans," among other unpleasant things.

Yes, but that was then and this is now. I really don't buy into any post-Pius XI Vatican "statements" on the Middle East. Far too much "let's have a touchy-feely dialogue" pablum for my taste.

I'm not at all sure what that's supposed to mean.

Which has been the status-quo since the 1990s.


I don't know anyone who has said it's about Christians.

I'm not so sure about that. Far too much chance for this to turn out like empowering the Taliban in Afghanistan just because they were "anti-commmunist." That doesn't seem to have worked out too well, has it?