Syria: a civil war (closed) [Archive] - Page 3

Dayuhan

07-24-2012, 11:30 PM

What if our only objective is to begin a dialog with the rebels, who, if successful, will begin to form a new government? What are our options for initiating contact and providing limited assistance to build good will with them? Or should I just assume that this is already happening.

I think that's probably happening. I don't think it's unreasonable to talk to the armed opposition, the unarmed opposition, even members of Assad's faction who might turn away. Building limes of communications and assessing the individuals concerned isn't intervention. Actively assisting any given faction would have to be considered more carefully.

I don't have any real objection to having CIA work with the Saudis and Qataris to try to keep their arms aid from going to radical Islamists. Of course that effort won't be 100% effective and may not be effective at all, but the arms will flow anyway and it's worth making an effort to keep them from flowing to the worst of the worst.

Does it matter if the dead are a result of our (outsiders') action or inaction?

I don't think it's possible to say that outside action caused the deaths, unless someone can present a convincing case for some outside action that could have reduced the death toll.

The artificial structures of power shaped post-WWI by the Europeans, and post-WWII by the US are being thrown off by populaces across the Middle East.

In some places perhaps, but I don't think you could reasonably classify the regime of an Assad or a Gadaffi as shaped by the Europeans or the US.

To me it looks like a bar fight. You could stand back and watch, and the black eyes and loose teeth that result could hardly be considered your fault. Or, you jump in for the party without any need to and the fun could quickly turn into bad time.

Of course if you're a police officer with jurisdiction over the area where the bar is located, you have an obligation to intervene. We are not that, and I think it's worth reminding some of that fact. Too often we hear the chorus of "something must be done, where are the Americans", as exemplified by the rather amusing piece on Obama and Russia that JMA linked to earlier. Then of course if The S does a cannonball leap into the $#!thole and predictably spatters the stuff around the vicinity, the same people criticize the US for doing it wrong, without any hint of how it might have been done right. Better to ignore the chorus and act according to our own perception of our own interests.

davidbfpo

07-25-2012, 08:13 AM

TheCurmudgeon

07-25-2012, 11:37 AM

I don't have any real objection to having CIA work with the Saudis and Qataris to try to keep their arms aid from going to radical Islamists. Of course that effort won't be 100% effective and may not be effective at all, but the arms will flow anyway and it's worth making an effort to keep them from flowing to the worst of the worst.

On this we agree. At least part of the fight there involves Islamic extremists whose activities (particularly their tactics, connections, and ability to obtain and transfer weapons) are of direct concern to the US and Britain. Efforts we make, as limited as they may and should be, potentially provide a direct benefit to us. It is also in our interest to try to ensure that those extremists do not end up running the country after the transition.

I don't think it's possible to say that outside action caused the deaths, unless someone can present a convincing case for some outside action that could have reduced the death toll.

Those are two different arguments, but they both highlight an interesting point. For the sake of argument over whether outsiders have an interest in intervening in the internal affairs of another country, why should it matter that people are dying? As pointed out people are going to die in forcible political transitions anyway. People are dying right now. Why does it matter to outsiders? Unless it constitutes genocide or a war crime (those time when Westerners are willing to sidestep the idea of sovereignty for jurisdictional purposes yet not really willing to actually do anything until well after the fact) this question should not be part of our debate as to whether we should get involved.

Yet it comes up again and again. Interesting...

JMA

07-25-2012, 12:08 PM

But of course...

What I've already said on this thread has been consistent to the point of repetitiveness, and I don't see any particular point in repeating it yet again. Maybe later I can go back and cut and paste the key points for your review; I'm going to ride the bike before the afternoon rains come in.

If were to claim that there were some magic bullet, some option for intervention that could be or could have been taken to resolve this situation, I would of course be obliged to say exactly what I think should be or should have been done. I'd look a complete ass if I didn't explain what I thought should be or have been done, especially if I'd accused others of incompetence for not doing it.

I've made no such claim. You have, notably absent any explanation of what you think should have been done and what effect you think that action would have had.

I have said, ad nauseam, that I do not see any available military intervention option that would meet even the most minimal criteria for probability of success, avoidance of extended commitment, probability of unintended adverse consequences, and domestic political acceptability. If anyone else has such an option great: let's see it. Claiming that an option exists without specifying what it is... not very convincing.

There are non-military options, some of which have been used. I don't think they have much chance of success, largely because, as you say, they are not backed by any credible and politically acceptable military option and everyone in the picture knows it.

It would be wonderful if some outside deus ex machina could simply "fix" Syria. That capacity isn't there. Even if the political will existed, which it doesn't, the effort would be likely to make matters worse and to leave the self-appointed deus ex machina up to their eyeballs in the sheisse.

In short: there are no critical US interests at stake, there's no domestic political support for military intervention, no viable options for military intervention have been presented, non-military options are on the table but probably won't accomplish anything, and there's an excellent chance that anyone who tries to drain that swamp will end up drowning in it. Therefore US involvement IMO needs to be at most peripheral. If anyone else wants a go, best of luck.

I could explain that in more detail, but is it really needed?

Can't you really do any better than that?

JMA

07-25-2012, 12:25 PM

A rather lurid headline for a story that refers to a new RUSI report on Syria, which I've started to read. So for the report itself: http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/SyriaBriefing.pdf and the short newspaper edition:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9423537/Syria-West-could-deploy-300000-troops-following-regime-collapse.html

Today I cannot see any coalition intervening in such numbers.

Citing an earlier post on Libya by Taabistan is a salutary reminder:

David, one hopes that the USians around here take the time to read what you have linked to. It may help to balance their myopic US-centric view of (in this case) Syria.

The US led action in Iraq can be summed up in two words; incompetent, inept.

The handling of the Syrian situation as it slides into civil war can be summed up by; incompetent, impotent.

The key to such situations is not to allow it to slide into civil war because then no one wins.

We have now reached a new level of US diplomatic cowardice and must wait to see if the next 4 years will be more of the same or what will a new guy do.

I think its time for Europe to start to work towards a new relationship with Russia which hopefully will begin a move towards democracy (sooner rather than later). There is a potential win-win situation there in the medium term. Then Europe can let the US wimp itself into isolation if that is what it wants.

Dayuhan

07-25-2012, 12:41 PM

Can't you really do any better than that?

Yes, but that seemed sufficient for the purpose. At least I'm not accusing others of incompetence for not doing something and then refusing to say what I think could or should have been done.

The US led action in Iraq can be summed up in two words; incompetent, inept.

The handling of the Syrian situation as it slides into civil war can be summed up by; incompetent, impotent.

The key to such situations is not to allow it to slide into civil war because then no one wins.

We have now reached a new level of US diplomatic cowardice and must wait to see if the next 4 years will be more of the same or what will a new guy do.

None of this means anything if you can't tell us what you think a competent administration could or should have done. How exactly do you propose to stop these situations from sliding into civil war?

I also think the US handling of Iraq was poor. What I think should have been done is quite straightforward: I think we shouldn't have gone into the regime change business there at all. What do you think would have been a "competent" approach?

I think its time for Europe to start to work towards a new relationship with Russia which hopefully will begin a move towards democracy (sooner rather than later). There is a potential win-win situation there in the medium term. Then Europe can let the US wimp itself into isolation if that is what it wants.

Presumably the Russians and Europeans could and would work together if they perceived a common interest in doing so. That's not impossible, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

I see no reason to equate a reduced level of intervention with isolation. The US has been more isolated by over-intervention than by under-intervention, and overreach arguably poses a greater threat to the US than a more conservative approach to messing in the affairs of others.

JMA

07-25-2012, 01:05 PM

Yes, but that seemed sufficient for the purpose. At least I'm not accusing others of incompetence for not doing something and then refusing to say what I think could or should have been done.

Still waiting for you to produce your reading of the Syrian situation in about 500-600 words. Is that too difficult or do your prefer to sit off top the side and nit-pick other persons posts instead?

None of this means anything if you can't tell us what you think a competent administration could or should have done. How exactly do you propose to stop these situations from sliding into civil war?

The worst case scenario is for a civil war situation to develop. That it happens indicates rank incompetence. Nothing more needs to be said.

I also think the US handling of Iraq was poor. What I think should have been done is quite straightforward: I think we shouldn't have gone into the regime change business there at all. What do you think would have been a "competent" approach?

Not incompetence... criminal negligence.

As for the rest I would prefer to discuss with a person with a suitable military background. Otherwise it is just a waste of time.

Presumably the Russians and Europeans could and would work together if they perceived a common interest in doing so. That's not impossible, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

The main reason for Europe falling into line behind the US is for the protection that brings. While the US is indeed able to provide such protection it appears increasingly unwilling to do so. A US without balls is not worth kow-towing to.

I see no reason to equate a reduced level of intervention with isolation. The US has been more isolated by over-intervention than by under-intervention, and overreach arguably poses a greater threat to the US than a more conservative approach to messing in the affairs of others.

It is not the intervention that has estranged the US from many countries but rather the incompetence of the conduct of past interventions. Quite correctly if the US cant do this stuff competently then better not to do it at all. That is just face-saving and an understandable desire to avoid yet another humiliation.

So - once again - I agree that the US should avoid these military interventions, not because they are undesirable but because there is a near cetainty that they will cock-it-up.

davidbfpo

07-25-2012, 01:37 PM

davidbfpo

07-25-2012, 01:41 PM

A pertinent commentary on what could happen in Syria soon:http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/civil-war-and-revenge/

Those who live in the region have a stronger memory of what can happen. Whether its Iraq or the Lebanon.

(The author also contributed to the RUSI report).

JMA

07-25-2012, 02:37 PM

JMA,

As I have said before a number of nations have effectively declined to act: UK, France, USA and maybe some of their Western allies. That leaves Syria's non-Arab neighbours (Israel & Turkey), the Arab League and Syria's allies (China, Iran & Russia) - none of whom appear capable and willing.

Having read the linked RUSI paper I still find it hard to envisage a Western-led uninvited intervention, especially as the Syrian regime retains enough capability to make it difficult - their air defences notably. Secondly the stance of the FSA, jihadist groups and others to a Western intrusion is not guaranteed.

Even external action after the use of CBW is problematical.

The R2P advocates may want action, in my reading none have given an outline of what they would do.

The Arab League has plenty of cash and some military capability. It's time for them to mobilise and prepare for a non-coercive intervention.

Now I shall await some professional military posts on intervention.

David the RUSI stuff is projecting what will be needed if there is total collapse leading to internecine civil war. There was talk of needing 300,000 troops.

My point is that right at the get-go all the major nations would have been told by their scenario planners what the worst case scenario was.

Therefore to prevent such a collapse was (or should have been paramount).

So when Leon Panetta says the violence in Syria is "rapidly spinning out of control" it is really an admission failure on a grand scale. Once the politicians and diplomats have screwed it up they then dump the baby on the military while effectively tying one hand behind their backs.

So the simple question should be asked... "what allowed Syria to continue to thumb its nose at demands for a cessation of violence and a transition to a democratic dispensation"?

TheCurmudgeon

07-25-2012, 05:30 PM

I guess if we are not as interested in controlling the narrative others are...

It is the sort of image that has become a staple of the Syrian revolution, a video of masked men calling themselves the Free Syrian Army and brandishing AK-47s — with one unsettling difference. In the background hang two flags of Al Qaeda, white Arabic writing on a black field.

The presence of jihadists in Syria has accelerated in recent days in part because of a convergence with the sectarian tensions across the country’s long border in Iraq. Al Qaeda, through an audio statement, has just made an undisguised bid to link its insurgency in Iraq with the revolution in Syria, depicting both as sectarian conflicts — Sunnis versus Shiites.

Daniel Byman, a counterterrorism expert who is a professor at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Brookings Institution, said it is clear that Al Qaeda is trying to become more active in Syria. As it has already done in Somalia and Mali, and before that in Chechnya and Yemen, the group is trying to turn a local conflict to its advantage. “There’s no question Al Qaeda wants to do that, and they are actually pretty good at this sort of thing,” he said. “They’ve done well at taking a local conflict” and taking it global.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/world/middleeast/al-qaeda-insinuating-its-way-into-syrias-conflict.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Dayuhan

07-25-2012, 10:41 PM

So the simple question should be asked... "what allowed Syria to continue to thumb its nose at demands for a cessation of violence and a transition to a democratic dispensation"?

The simple answer: lack of credible and politically acceptable military options and lack of home-front political support for intervention among potential intervening powers (or, realistically, in the potential intervening power).

Given the lack of attractive military options and the lack of home-front support for military action, The demands for cessation of violence were never going to be backed by anything more than impotent economic sanctions and a lot of talk. The Assads, of course, knew that.

Dayuhan

07-26-2012, 09:26 AM

David the RUSI stuff is projecting what will be needed if there is total collapse leading to internecine civil war. There was talk of needing 300,000 troops.

The 300,000 figure was cited as required for "a full scale invasion of Syria to bring about regime change along the lines of the 2003 United States led war in Iraq." The report went on to comment that "It is almost impossible to see the diplomatic and political circumstances under which such an operation would be possible".

JMA

07-26-2012, 01:06 PM

The 300,000 figure was cited as required for "a full scale invasion of Syria to bring about regime change along the lines of the 2003 United States led war in Iraq." The report went on to comment that "It is almost impossible to see the diplomatic and political circumstances under which such an operation would be possible".

Perhaps now is your opportunity display your military expertise (in 500-600 words) and lay out the military intervention options for Syria with the troops required for each?

TheCurmudgeon

07-26-2012, 02:34 PM

The 300,000 figure was cited as required for "a full scale invasion of Syria to bring about regime change along the lines of the 2003 United States led war in Iraq."

OK, let's clarify the difference between this situation and Iraq. In Iraq the coalition was an invading force sent in to effect regime change over a stable government where there was no active civil war occurring. Any comparison to Iraq is species at best.

Here outsiders are not trying to effect regime change, the population is. Our concern is either based on humanitarian interests or it is based on security concerns about the conflict currently spilling over and igniting a regional conflict or that the resulting regime will pose a threat to future regional or world stability. Our contingencies should be built on those factors not built on an Iraqi style invasion and occupation.

The report went on to comment that "It is almost impossible to see the diplomatic and political circumstances under which such an operation would be possible".

Not really my concern. I abide by the proposition that you use a military as an extension of your foreign policy. Someone else decides the policy. I look at what options are available. Whether people are dying or whether there is political will should not color my work. It also should not keep me from examining options, even if those options are military based but do not actually depend on my military to execute the mission.

JMA

07-26-2012, 02:41 PM

... concern is either based on humanitarian interests or it is based on security concerns about the conflict currently spilling over and igniting a regional conflict or that the resulting regime will pose a threat to future regional or world stability.

That was what the concern should have been 16 months ago... to avoid such a worse case scenario developing.

TheCurmudgeon

07-26-2012, 02:57 PM

That was what the concern should have been 16 months ago... to avoid such a worse case scenario developing.

... and I suppose 16 months ago we should have started looking at options. Maybe we did. I also should have added the more recent concern of security for WMDs or other weapons systems (like the advanced ADA systems).

I guess, from my perspective, a more constructive discussion would be built on what the military CAN do rather than what it SHOULD do.

Also, as long as we are forward looking, what can we do to assist in the transition if asked. Truth and reconciliation commissions come to mind, but I am not sure how they have worked in the past and what part the military plays in implementing them. Is there even a basis for something like them in a predominately Islamic culture?

davidbfpo

07-26-2012, 09:55 PM

TheCurmudgeon just asked:
what can we do to assist in the transition if asked. Truth and reconciliation commissions come to mind, but I am not sure how they have worked in the past and what part the military plays in implementing them. Is there even a basis for something like them in a predominately Islamic culture?

The role of 'Truth and reconciliation commissions' post-conflict would be a good separate thread topic.

The most famous TRC was in post-apartheid South Africa, although something in my memory says they have appeared in Central and South America.

Here (the UK) we have had a version in Northern Ireland, for the 'Bloody Sunday' shootings, called the Saville Inquiry and for a number of other controversial incidents - invariably for victims who were labelled 'Republican'. Not a very equal process IMO, but for those who I have spoken to there an acceptable price for peace.

There is no such thing as a common Islamic culture IMHO; there is a very different priority or value given to human rights and justice. Curiously the pre-Arab Spring state delivery of safety & security was always marred by injustice, it is just that dissenting voices were quiet, even terrorised and of course labelled as a threat.

In Africa, former Yugoslavia and Cambodia there has been recourse to international criminal court investigations and trials. Not TRC, but an alternative approach.

Dayuhan

07-27-2012, 12:38 AM

Perhaps now is your opportunity display your military expertise (in 500-600 words) and lay out the military intervention options for Syria with the troops required for each?

I'll leave that to those who advocate intervention, and who thus need to explain what exactly they advocate, what resources it will require, and what they expect it to accomplish.

Non-intervention IMO requires no justification. In the absence of compelling national interests and viable options, it's the only reasonable course. The compelling interests and viable options need to be specified clearly before intervention is considered. Intervention does need to be justified - given the cost and risk it needs to be very well justified - and the onus is on those who think intervention is or was a desirable option to explain what they think should (or should have been) done and what they think it might have accomplished. It's not as if there was ever some easy and obvious solution; we all know these situations are not at any stage going to be resolved by firing off a few cruise missiles.

... and I suppose 16 months ago we should have started looking at options. Maybe we did. I also should have added the more recent concern of security for WMDs or other weapons systems (like the advanced ADA systems).

I'm sure there's been a continuing stream of studies on potential outcomes and potential options. Given the domestic political environment they would have to be very convincing to be even considered, and it's not surprising that none have been adopted. I'm sure there are options for security of WMDs and other systems on the table, though I doubt that anyone here has enough information to support more than very general speculation on what those options might be.

As a personal opinion... I hate the idea, but I could see how a very limited operation to secure, remove, or destroy WMD or other weapons systems might be desirable in an extreme case. There would have to be a very clear mandate and a very clear insistence that it not transmute into efforts at "nation-building" or "stabilization". Again, opinion.

I guess, from my perspective, a more constructive discussion would be built on what the military CAN do rather than what it SHOULD do.

Both the policy and the possible means to execute policy seem to me relevant. Of course they are interlinked: it would be silly to adopt a policy that you haven't any effective means to implement.

I think it would be safe to assume that the policy constraints imposed on Libyan intervention would apply to any proposed US intervention in Syria: the intervention should not be initiated by the US and must be designed to avoid any possibility of extended US commitment. There are probably many others. Realistically, I don't think any military intervention is going to be considered until after the election. Political suicide is an unattractive option for politicians, especially over a very peripheral issue.

I would also be interested in hearing what the military folks here believe can be accomplished by various options for military intervention, and also what they believe the attendant risks of those options would be.

Also, as long as we are forward looking, what can we do to assist in the transition if asked. Truth and reconciliation commissions come to mind, but I am not sure how they have worked in the past and what part the military plays in implementing them. Is there even a basis for something like them in a predominately Islamic culture?

Every society emerging from dictatorship has to confront the "justice vs reconciliation" issue in its own way. I'm not sure that "Islamic culture" is the key variable in Syria... as in Iraq, extended domination by a minority has left a mix that would be volatile no matter what the prevailing religion. In any event it's something Syrians will need to resolve: A TRC might be an option but I can't see it as something we can do to assist.

OK, let's clarify the difference between this situation and Iraq. In Iraq the coalition was an invading force sent in to effect regime change over a stable government where there was no active civil war occurring. Any comparison to Iraq is species at best.

Agreed: the material was quoted purely to provide context for a figure cited from the same report.

Here outsiders are not trying to effect regime change, the population is. Our concern is either based on humanitarian interests or it is based on security concerns about the conflict currently spilling over and igniting a regional conflict or that the resulting regime will pose a threat to future regional or world stability. Our contingencies should be built on those factors not built on an Iraqi style invasion and occupation.

Agreed, though I think "spilling over" is too general a fear to be useful. Contingency planning would have to be based on specific assessments of possible outcomes and what might be done to alter them. What specific "spillover" do we fear?

Not really my concern. I abide by the proposition that you use a military as an extension of your foreign policy. Someone else decides the policy. I look at what options are available. Whether people are dying or whether there is political will should not color my work. It also should not keep me from examining options, even if those options are military based but do not actually depend on my military to execute the mission.

True of course from a purely military perspective, but I think both the ends and the means are legitimate subjects for discussion here.

Is it possible to look at what options are available without knowing what specific policy goal is sought?

JMA

07-27-2012, 07:51 AM

I'll leave that to those who advocate intervention, and who thus need to explain what exactly they advocate, what resources it will require, and what they expect it to accomplish.

Non-intervention IMO requires no justification. In the absence of compelling national interests and viable options, it's the only reasonable course. The compelling interests and viable options need to be specified clearly before intervention is considered. Intervention does need to be justified - given the cost and risk it needs to be very well justified - and the onus is on those who think intervention is or was a desirable option to explain what they think should (or should have been) done and what they think it might have accomplished. It's not as if there was ever some easy and obvious solution; we all know these situations are not at any stage going to be resolved by firing off a few cruise missiles.

I'm sure there's been a continuing stream of studies on potential outcomes and potential options. Given the domestic political environment they would have to be very convincing to be even considered, and it's not surprising that none have been adopted. I'm sure there are options for security of WMDs and other systems on the table, though I doubt that anyone here has enough information to support more than very general speculation on what those options might be.

As a personal opinion... I hate the idea, but I could see how a very limited operation to secure, remove, or destroy WMD or other weapons systems might be desirable in an extreme case. There would have to be a very clear mandate and a very clear insistence that it not transmute into efforts at "nation-building" or "stabilization". Again, opinion.

Both the policy and the possible means to execute policy seem to me relevant. Of course they are interlinked: it would be silly to adopt a policy that you haven't any effective means to implement.

I think it would be safe to assume that the policy constraints imposed on Libyan intervention would apply to any proposed US intervention in Syria: the intervention should not be initiated by the US and must be designed to avoid any possibility of extended US commitment. There are probably many others. Realistically, I don't think any military intervention is going to be considered until after the election. Political suicide is an unattractive option for politicians, especially over a very peripheral issue.

I would also be interested in hearing what the military folks here believe can be accomplished by various options for military intervention, and also what they believe the attendant risks of those options would be.

Every society emerging from dictatorship has to confront the "justice vs reconciliation" issue in its own way. I'm not sure that "Islamic culture" is the key variable in Syria... as in Iraq, extended domination by a minority has left a mix that would be volatile no matter what the prevailing religion. In any event it's something Syrians will need to resolve: A TRC might be an option but I can't see it as something we can do to assist.

Agreed: the material was quoted purely to provide context for a figure cited from the same report.

Agreed, though I think "spilling over" is too general a fear to be useful. Contingency planning would have to be based on specific assessments of possible outcomes and what might be done to alter them. What specific "spillover" do we fear?

True of course from a purely military perspective, but I think both the ends and the means are legitimate subjects for discussion here.

Is it possible to look at what options are available without knowing what specific policy goal is sought?

Again I am left wondering why you make no attempt to initiate a particular line of discussion seemingly preferring to dissect and criticise the input of others.

Every time I read one of your posts I am reminded of Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" speech of 1910:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

TheCurmudgeon

07-27-2012, 12:18 PM

There is no such thing as a common Islamic culture IMHO; there is a very different priority or value given to human rights and justice.

I would disagree with your assumption, or at least caution against it. Our legal system is based in large part on values from a Christian tradition. Confession and forgiveness are an integral part of that tradition. What is expected under Sharia law may be completely different.

Also in the Arab culture in general is a tribal tradition. Certain tribal practices, particularly in blood feuds, would dictate that a death by any member of the offending tribe is good enough. For example, If you and I are a member of tribe Davidbfpo and I kill someone in tribe Dayuhan it is not necessary for tribe Dayuhan to find and kill me. Killing you, or any other random member of Tribe Davidbfpo satisfies the debt created when I killed a member of their tribe. This goes back to the idea that the tribe is the important entity, not the individual.

My point is that I would caution against assuming that their culture and value system would automatically recognize a Truth and Reconciliation model used elsewhere or that, in the end, it would have the desired effect of allowing the country to put that part of their past behind them and move forward together.

TheCurmudgeon

07-27-2012, 12:53 PM

As a personal opinion... I hate the idea, but I could see how a very limited operation to secure, remove, or destroy WMD or other weapons systems might be desirable in an extreme case. There would have to be a very clear mandate and a very clear insistence that it not transmute into efforts at "nation-building" or "stabilization". Again, opinion.

You acknowledge that the conditions in Syria, that there is an ongoing civil war, are different from Iraq yet your concerns about intervention are based almost solely on that paradigm. I think at this point it is incumbent on you to explain how a mission to secure weapons of mass destruction can turn into a nation-building exercise.

Both the policy and the possible means to execute policy seem to me relevant. Of course they are interlinked: it would be silly to adopt a policy that you haven't any effective means to implement.

Actually no. Nations adopt policies all the times as objectives and then work to create the ability to make that policy reality. Case in point, the policy to reduce fossil fuel consumption or reduce greenhouse gasses. We have no idea how to do this effectively, but our policy is to try.

Every society emerging from dictatorship has to confront the "justice vs reconciliation" issue in its own way. I'm not sure that "Islamic culture" is the key variable in Syria... as in Iraq, extended domination by a minority has left a mix that would be volatile no matter what the prevailing religion. In any event it's something Syrians will need to resolve: A TRC might be an option but I can't see it as something we can do to assist.

Actually no. There are distinct advantages in having outsiders administer the program. That way there is no ability for one side to claim that it was simply retribution and to continue the fight. That means they secure the prisoners and the courts. They are not in the jury box nor are they dictating the legal system. It is a check to ensure that the entire process is seen as legitimate and not a kangaroo court. An example would be Kenya:

Critics also question the credibility of the commissioners because of their connection to Moi’s regime and its gross human rights violations. Deputy chair of the commission, lawyer Betty Murungi, resigned saying that she found it difficult to fulfill her duties when the commission leader, Bethwell Kiplagat, faced accusations. Additionally, the inability of the commission to meet its November 11, 2011 report deadline only enhanced public skepticism. The task of reconciling the people of Kenya after the series of gross human rights violations that have occurred of the past half-century requires a stable commission and a government that the people of Kenya can believe in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth,_Justice_and_Reconciliation_Commission_o f_Kenya

An alternative method is demonstrated by El Salvador:

Established by the United Nations (instead of the Government of El Salvador), the establishment of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador (Comisión de la Verdad) (United Nations)[3] was part of Chapultepec Peace Accords to end the Salvadoran Civil War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_reconciliation_commission

TheCurmudgeon

07-27-2012, 08:51 PM

I think a more interesting question, from an American perspective, is who can act to secure the WMD's without risking exacerbating the situation? I don't believe America "can" (should). If others in the region share Syria's justification for having their Nerve Agents as a deterrent to Israel's nuclear weapons and the US, an ardent backer of Israel, acts to "secure" the weapons, it is easy for opponents to the US (Al Qaeda, Iran) to portray our action as denying the post-Assad regime with the ability to defend itself from an Israeli first strike.

Add to that the fact that the US has sold itself to certain powers in the region as their protector (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.) and therefore the justification for them not to have their own military capability, we have created a no win situation.

I suppose the Iranian's could offer to do it. Wouldn't that be interesting. Probably have to be the Russians if we could convince them it was in their best interest to act.

davidbfpo

07-27-2012, 09:16 PM

Given how little information on Syria's CBW capability is in the open domain I expect watchers have been following closely anything that moves near the storage areas. Is the capability hollow?

The Economist has an article of value:http://www.economist.com/node/21559671

Dayuhan

07-27-2012, 10:26 PM

Again I am left wondering why you make no attempt to initiate a particular line of discussion seemingly preferring to dissect and criticise the input of others.

I've stated repeatedly what I think should and should not be done, and why. What more do you want?

Every time I read one of your posts I am reminded of Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" speech of 1910:

The citation seems one you might read to yourself. The critic here is you: you repeatedly accuse those who actually hold responsibility of "incompetence", without ever stating what you think could or should have been done.

I can't see anywhere in this discussion where I've criticized anyone who's responsible for action. If I do at some point choose to do so, especially using terms like "incompetence", I'd hope to have the wit and the courage to lay out exactly what I think a competent course of action would have been, because I'd look a complete wanker if I didn't.

Who was incompetent, why, and what do you think should have been done? If a critic is going to toss words like "incompetent" around, shouldn't the critic at least be prepared to back the words up with answers to those questions?

Dayuhan

07-27-2012, 10:42 PM

You acknowledge that the conditions in Syria, that there is an ongoing civil war, are different from Iraq yet your concerns about intervention are based almost solely on that paradigm. I think at this point it is incumbent on you to explain how a mission to secure weapons of mass destruction can turn into a nation-building exercise.

In two words, mission creep. Once you put boots on the ground, you have a capacity. Once the capacity exists, there's a temptation to use it for purposes beyond those of the original mission. That fear may be overblown, but if in any extreme case it seems necessary to send forces to secure, remove, or destroy weapons I think there will have to be some determination to resist any potential expansion of the mission. I agree that the fear is to some extent derived from Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't think that renders it entirely illegitimate, even if circumstances are very different.

Actually no. Nations adopt policies all the times as objectives and then work to create the ability to make that policy reality. Case in point, the policy to reduce fossil fuel consumption or reduce greenhouse gasses. We have no idea how to do this effectively, but our policy is to try.

There is a place for aspirational policy. Deploying military force in pursuit of aspirational policy is, IMO, generally a bad idea.

Actually no. There are distinct advantages in having outsiders administer the program. That way there is no ability for one side to claim that it was simply retribution and to continue the fight. That means they secure the prisoners and the courts. They are not in the jury box nor are they dictating the legal system. It is a check to ensure that the entire process is seen as legitimate and not a kangaroo court. An example would be Kenya:

If it doesn't look like retribution, it comes off looking like outsiders meddling to advance their own interests... which, realistically, is exactly what it would be.

The idea of the UN coming in and administering a "fair and balanced" resolution of the justice vs reconciliation issues is superficially attractive, but for innumerable reasons I can't see it happening. None of the sides involved would truest them, protecting those involved would be a massive headache, etc.

Granite_State

07-28-2012, 04:03 AM

A post on CJ Chivers' website labels the IED as a game changer in Syria:

Once the armed opposition mastered the I.E.D. and spiked with bombs much of the very ground that any military seeking to control Syria must cover, and Syria’s army lacked a deep bench of well-trained explosive ordnance disposal teams and the suites of electronic and defensive equipment for its vehicles to survive, then the end was written. Because the Syrian army is ####ed. And its troop must know it.

http://cjchivers.com/ (can't seem to link to the individual post)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-hone-bomb-skills-military-analysis.html?pagewanted=all

Surferbeetle

07-28-2012, 04:45 PM

The self-induced fragmentation of Syria exposes a variety of ancient fault lines, provides potential opportunities for the Kurds (as well as the Turks if they are canny), and brings into question the received wisdom regarding the suitability of using military force to 'take' (aka destroy) a functioning economic center of gravity (in this case one which is almost 5,000 years old) vital to the viability of one's own nation.

If Alawites are turning against Assad then his fate is sealed, Robert Fisk, MONDAY 23 JULY 2012, The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-if-alawites-are-turning-against-assad-then-his-fate-is-sealed-7965154.html

Kurdish people, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people

Kurden in Syrien, In seiner Not berlsst Asad der PKK das Feld, NZZ, http://mobile.nzz.ch/aktuell/international/in-seiner-not-ueberlaesst-asad-der-pkk-das-feld-1.17402477

Erdogans Angst vor einem neuen Quasistaat, Von MICHAEL MARTENS, ISTANBUL, 28.07.2012, FAZ, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/syrien-erdogans-angst-vor-einem-neuen-quasistaat-11834693.html

Economy of Syria, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria

Aleppo, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo

Aleppo, http://www.macalester.edu/courses/geog261/Copeland_Aleppo/index.htm

Mandate of Heaven, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

jcustis

07-29-2012, 10:02 AM

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0622-obama-latino-hispanic-florida/12940888-1-eng-US/0622-obama-latino-hispanic-florida_full_600.jpg

"Dayuhan my good man, I was reading up on some Syria stuff, putting thought to the way ahead and all that. I happened upon this thread and saw that you are holding yourself in good accord. Well done sir...well done." -Barack O.

TheCurmudgeon

07-29-2012, 12:09 PM

The opposition, meanwhile, is winning territory, but its ranks are divided among some 100 groups with no clear political leadership. Even if Mr. Assad were to step down voluntarily, his Alawite military machine and its sectarian allies are likely to fight on, holding large chunks of territory.

Syria would then fracture, with the fighting deciding who controls what area — a larger version of Lebanon in the 1970s. There would be ethnic cleansing, refugee floods, humanitarian disasters and opportunities for Al Qaeda.

In Lebanon, a decade and a half of carnage was stopped only with the assistance of Syria and its army as peacemakers. A similar sectarian conflagration plunged Iraq into violence after the American invasion. There, a surge of American troops in 2007 helped stop the fighting. In Syria, there are no foreign troops to play such a role, and little prospect that any will come while the war lasts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/after-syrias-assad-falls-the-us-must-work-with-iran.html?ref=opinion

Could a Arab force like the one proposed by Tunisia successfully enforce peace when they themselves would be similarly divided?

Entropy

07-29-2012, 12:48 PM

JMA

07-29-2012, 01:24 PM

"Dayuhan my good man, I was reading up on some Syria stuff, putting thought to the way ahead and all that. I happened upon this thread and saw that you are holding yourself in good accord. Well done sir...well done." -Barack O.

Talking of BO (and nobody else):

http://americanbuilt.us/images/war-criminals/vote-stupid-out.jpg

Surferbeetle

07-29-2012, 02:59 PM

Could a Arab force like the one proposed by Tunisia successfully enforce peace when they themselves would be similarly divided?

Hmmm....I do not speak nor read, Arabic, Farsi, Kurdish, Turkish, or Hebrew (which includes Farsi, Russian, Amharic (Ethiopian), and Yiddish) and as a result at least 60% of the ideas which drive this conflict are lost in the translation IMO.

60/40 is an important metric to keep in mind when making plans/bets/assigning probabilities regarding Assad's resilience (reliance upon poor external military advice), the managed growth of West Kurdistan, the reduction in the conveyance capacity of the Iranian supply chain, regional security concerns, and the interests of extra-regional patrons. ;)

Shahnameh, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahnameh

Ferdowsi did not expect his readers to pass over historical events indifferently, but asked them to think carefully, to see the grounds for the rise and fall of individuals and nations; and to learn from the past in order to improve the present, and to better shape the future.

Ferdowsi stresses his belief that since the world is transient, and since everyone is merely a passerby, one is wise to avoid cruelty, lying, avarice, and other evils; instead one should strive for justice, honor, truth, order, and other virtues.

Syrian regime keeps pressure on Aleppo, By Abigail Fielding-Smith in Beirut, Monavar Khalaj in Tehran and agencies, July 29, 2012 1:19 pm, Financial Times, www.ft.com

Syria crisis: Humanitarian pressure grows, By Mark Doyle, 23 July 2012 Last updated at 11:26 ET, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18952706

Crisis in Syria emboldens country's Kurds, By Wyre Davies, 27 July 2012 Last updated at 19:45 ET, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19021766

China's influence in Syria goes beyond trade boom, Phil Sands, Aug 26, 2008, The National, http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/asia-pacific/chinas-influence-in-syria-goes-beyond-trade-boom

France to pressure Russia, China on Syria: Hollande, Reuters – 28 July, 2012, http://news.yahoo.com/france-pressure-russia-china-syria-hollande-162110777.html

French Revolution, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

There is a school of thought, by the way, that France's financial overcommitment to the American Revolution was a contributing factor to the French Revolution....

davidbfpo

07-29-2012, 08:56 PM

A useful collection of articles on:
on covert action and intelligence collection in and against Syria

Link:http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/the-not-so-secret-war-in-syria/

Dayuhan

07-29-2012, 11:01 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/after-syrias-assad-falls-the-us-must-work-with-iran.html?ref=opinion

Two things strike me about this opinion piece...

First, all the discussion of developing a Syrian transition plan seems to revolve around the need to bring in Iran, Russia, Turkey, etc. There's very little mention of how to get Syrians involved, particularly of how to figure out who speaks for the opposition and its various factions. I can't see how a viable Syrian transition plan is going to be contrived by non-Syrians.

I also think it unlikely (to say the least) that Iran and Russia are going to be sitting down with the US to work out Syria's future any time soon.

Second, as in so many other places there's an assumption that there will be terrible "spillover" and dire impacts on the region as a whole, but no clear idea of what exactly is feared. It's difficult to address that issue without a better idea of what specific scenarios are anticipated and why exactly they are so dreadful, especially if the need to prevent this "spillover" is being cited as a justification for intervention.

Could a Arab force like the one proposed by Tunisia successfully enforce peace when they themselves would be similarly divided?

I personally doubt that such a force could even be assembled, let alone be effective, but I'm skeptical by nature.

Dayuhan

07-30-2012, 12:44 AM

Talking of BO (and nobody else):

http://americanbuilt.us/images/war-criminals/vote-stupid-out.jpg

BO may well be voted out, but if he is it won't be over Syria, Libya, or any other foreign policy sideshow... the US economy is the issue over which the election will be contested.

I can't say I agree with everything he's done, either in domestic or foreign policy, but I'd hesitate to use words like "stupid", simply because I can't say with any great conviction that any alternative policy would have produced better results.

Seems to me that armchair critics who would accuse those with responsibility of stupidity, incompetence, or any other such thing really ought to back up those words with a clear explanation of what they think should have been done and why that course would have been better, lest they be suspected of spouting hot air...

JMA

07-30-2012, 05:02 AM

Two things strike me about this opinion piece...

Yes it was interesting... now we all wait for you to honour the board with your opinion piece.

JMA

07-30-2012, 05:13 AM

BO may well be voted out, but if he is it won't be over Syria, Libya, or any other foreign policy sideshow... the US economy is the issue over which the election will be contested.

Funny thing that.

I suggest that for millions around the world specifically in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria the impact of US meddling - be it of a military nature or merely diplomatic - is anything but a sideshow.

But USians just don't get it. You/they don't seem able to understand why (probably) more than half the world's population view the US and nobody and nothing else a the greatest threat to world peace.

Amazing that for a bunch of guys who always claim to have all the right answers you/they get it wrong so often.

Dayuhan

07-30-2012, 12:04 PM

I suggest that for millions around the world specifically in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria the impact of US meddling - be it of a military nature or merely diplomatic - is anything but a sideshow.

Probably so, but the fact remains that if we're talking about who gets voted out or in, foreign policy is in most elections a sideshow, as it is in most democracies.

I would personally agree that the US meddles far too much and should meddle a great deal less, but of course my opinion doesn't mean much. If we're going by world opinion, though, the current administration would have to be considered a large improvement over its predecessor.

But USians just don't get it. You/they don't seem able to understand why (probably) more than half the world's population view the US and nobody and nothing else a the greatest threat to world peace.

There are some things Americans do understand. They understand that most of the world's people have an opinion on what the US ought to do, and that those opinions are widely divergent and often contradictory. They understand that no matter what they do or don't do, an awful lot of people will be irate, either because the US didn't do what they wanted or because the US did do what they wanted and it didn't turn out the way they expected, in which case of course the US did it wrong. Americans understand that every armchair general and online critic on the planet knows exactly what the US should do and should have done at any given point to make everything right. Americans also understand that for the most part the armchair generals and online critics are full of hot air and have no useful ideas of their own to offer.

By far the best way to address the perception that the US is a threat to peace would, IMO, be to mind our own business and interfere in the affairs of others to the smallest possible extent... but of course some people will see that as a threat as well.

Of course what's been done hasn't always worked out well, though anyone who would attribute that to "incompetence" really ought to provide a course of action that might have worked out better. In many of these cases there isn't and wasn't any course of action that would be at all likely to make matters better, another excellent reason to mind one's own business and interfere in the affairs of others to the smallest possible extent. Of course the armchair generals and online critics will always bluster about what should have been done, which is easy to do from a secure distance and with no need to take responsibility for the outcome of action..

Amazing that for a bunch of guys who always claim to have all the right answers you/they get it wrong so often.

And here I was thinking you were the one with the answers, and hoping someday you'll tell us what should have been done...

TheCurmudgeon

07-30-2012, 12:17 PM

I suggest that for millions around the world specifically in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria the impact of US meddling - be it of a military nature or merely diplomatic - is anything but a sideshow.

The US is not the only country involved in meddling, or diplomacy, or aid, or whatever you want to call it.

In Syria alone there are the Turks, the Saudis, and the Isaerlis.

The Turks are supporting the rebels in Syria ... except for the Kurds who they fear could use a Kurd enclave in Syria to support the PKK in order to stage attacks on Turkey essentially opening up a new front.

Then there are the Iranian's who see one of their few allies failing for reasons they don't quite understand. The rest of the Arab Spring countries fall into a narrative that the people of dictatorial anti-Islamic regimes that have been propped up by the West are now falling as the people take back control. Syria doesn't neatly fit that narrative, so the Iranians believe the fault lies with external interference - that the majority of Syrians support the regime. They see this as a unholy alliance between the Saudis (those Arab Sunnis) and the West. As a result Terran sends support to Assad including weapons and advisers. There is the potential that if Assad has no other options the Iranians may directly intervene.
"Given the issues that Iran attributes to Syria's turbulence, it is believed that Tehran will do its utmost to maintain the status quo, even it entails risking military involvement."(http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13924)

Then there are the Israelis who would prefer Assad to a more Islamic state. What they are doing now is hard to tell but they are certainly looking at military options should the security of Syrian WMD's become questionable. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/157799

Everyone with the capability meddles in order to protect their own interests.

Amazing that for a bunch of guys who always claim to have all the right answers you/they get it wrong so often.

We have the same failings as everyone else; we NEED to have the events fall into a narrative that supports our national identity. We should be smarter than that, but we are as human as the next meddler.

jcustis

07-30-2012, 01:19 PM

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/deftac03/dalailama.jpg

"Dayuhan, my good friend Barack told me he was reading some superb stuff from this guy who understood the zen of the bicycle, and I had to take a peak. My good brother, it would seem you have won this debate handily, and can turn your hand to other things.

Bothering with those who have become irrelevant to the discussion is sort of like that one hand clapping thing..." Best regards, your homie DL

TheCurmudgeon

07-30-2012, 01:52 PM

The Syrian/Iranian narrative that the events in Syria are not the result of internal discontent but the result of external meddling:
As Syria’s international isolation has grown, Western nations have accused Iran of continuing to provide Mr. Assad’s government with weapons and other support. Russia, which has said it has suspended weapons sales to Syria, remains Mr. Assad’s staunchest defender, blocking international efforts to remove him from power.

On the other side, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have led an effort to arm Mr. Assad’s opponents. Turkey is said to have allowed weapons to move over its border, and United States intelligence officials have helped select the recipients, according to American officials.

Mr. Moallem played down the domestic opposition to his government, saying that despite the “plot” by those countries — led, he said, by Israel — Syria did not need foreign help to defend itself. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/syrian-official-criticizes-countries-backing-rebels.html?ref=world

Even though the events may have started as an internal struggle, outsiders see this as an opportunity to advance their own agendas.

The commander in Saraqib said that when he invited jihadists into his military council, they rejected several proposed names for the expanded group that included references to Syria. “They consider the entire world the Muslim homeland, so they refused any national, Syrian name,” he said.

The attitude prompts grumbling from fighters used to the gentler Islam long prevalent in Syria. Adel, a media activist from Idlib interviewed in Antakya, Turkey, in June, complained that “the Islamic current has broken into the heart of this revolution.” When a Muslim Brotherhood member joined his group in Idlib, he said, inside of a week the man demanded that the slogans that they shouted all included, “There is no god but God.”

“Now there are more religious chants than secular ones,” Adel groused.

Behind the surface tussling over symbols lies a fight for power and influence. Those attacking the government in the name of religion want more say, while those who preceded them want to limit their role. As in Iraq, the longer the fight, the more extremists will likely emerge. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/as-syrian-war-drags-on-jihad-gains-foothold.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

So now the pieces are in place for this proxy war to become a direct fight between different parties, like the Iranians, the Israelis, or the Saudis although I have to admit I do not see it moving beyond the borders of Syria unless an outside actor, like Iran or Israel, takes a direct, overt role. Even with that It is hard to tell. Vietnam remained largely an internal struggle for years even though the external players came and went.

Just keeps getting better...:rolleyes:

davidbfpo

07-30-2012, 02:42 PM

An open source analysis by SIPRI; halfway through changes to EU diplomacy, who paid for this research by two IISS analysts and another.

Link:http://www.sipri.org/research/disarmament/eu-consortium/publications/Nonproliferation-paper-20

Added. A RAND commentary, note it covers safeguarding and disposal:http://www.rand.org/commentary/2012/07/25/GS.html

JMA

07-30-2012, 03:42 PM

"Dayuhan, my good friend Barack told me he was reading some superb stuff from this guy who understood the zen of the bicycle, and I had to take a peak. My good brother, it would seem you have won this debate handily, and can turn your hand to other things.

Bothering with those who have become irrelevant to the discussion is sort of like that one hand clapping thing..." Best regards, your homie DL

when I read this post it reminded me of this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7UDkBdx9J7M/S622dKYM2zI/AAAAAAAAAGA/SnYxkMYcANk/s400/maturity.jpg

Nothing personal... just think you should improve your input

JMA

07-30-2012, 03:59 PM

The US is not the only country involved in meddling, or diplomacy, or aid, or whatever you want to call it.
...

Everyone with the capability meddles in order to protect their own interests.

We have the same failings as everyone else; we NEED to have the events fall into a narrative that supports our national identity. We should be smarter than that, but we are as human as the next meddler.

Let me share with you the general consensus among those looking at the US from outside (as best I can tell).

Policy wise the US is seen as bipolar. Even people who would like to be friends and allies of the US shake their heads in disbelief at the wild vacillations in foreign policy most often to the detriment of one time allies. Being supported by the US in a FID is almost certainly "the kiss of death".

The main difference is that the meddling of the US is consistently a failure - as the people in third world countries will mockingly tell you - which is terribly sad.

Yes indeed the US should be smarter in it foreign affairs.

Wyatt

07-30-2012, 04:24 PM

JMA

07-30-2012, 05:57 PM

I'll leave that to those who advocate intervention, and who thus need to explain what exactly they advocate, what resources it will require, and what they expect it to accomplish.

Sadly it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word "intervention". Your narrow focus is upon intervention of a military nature.

We seem to be in agreement that under no circumstances should the US attempt military intervention in Syria. You for hitherto unstated reasons and me for the simple fact that it will be yet another cock-up.

Non-intervention IMO requires no justification.

LOL... of course you would say that, otherwise you may be required to state your case openly and clearly. Now that appears to be something you are attempting to avoid at all costs.

In the absence of compelling national interests and viable options, it's the only reasonable course.

We have been through this 1,000 times before... who gets to decide what is in the US national interest. Only one person... the President of the USA. Yet time and time again we get the smart guys who believe that they are somehow able to decide what is in the US national interest.

The compelling interests and viable options need to be specified clearly before intervention is considered. Intervention does need to be justified - given the cost and risk it needs to be very well justified - and the onus is on those who think intervention is or was a desirable option to explain what they think should (or should have been) done and what they think it might have accomplished.

The current US meddling in Syria is intervention (of a non military nature at best or military intervention through the supply of arms through proxies at worst). This intervention as it is happening needs to be explained as much as those who advocate military intervention need to.

On the other extreme - seemingly your position - the non intervention at any cost needs to be explained and justified given the repercussions for the region of a Syrian collapse.

It's not as if there was ever some easy and obvious solution; we all know these situations are not at any stage going to be resolved by firing off a few cruise missiles.

Well I seem to have seen that the carefully targeted use of some HE was the game changer. Maybe you missed that?

I'm sure there's been a continuing stream of studies on potential outcomes and potential options. Given the domestic political environment they would have to be very convincing to be even considered, and it's not surprising that none have been adopted. I'm sure there are options for security of WMDs and other systems on the table, though I doubt that anyone here has enough information to support more than very general speculation on what those options might be.

You are just waffling now.

As a personal opinion... I hate the idea, but I could see how a very limited operation to secure, remove, or destroy WMD or other weapons systems might be desirable in an extreme case. There would have to be a very clear mandate and a very clear insistence that it not transmute into efforts at "nation-building" or "stabilization". Again, opinion.

Progress at last!

See its not so hard. Now try to expand your opinion piece to 500-600 words and take your chances with those are want wait to ambush thoses who dare to express their opinions fully.

(going to skip the rest as there is no substance there)

JMA

07-30-2012, 06:22 PM

A scattered foreign policy is going to happen when domestic policy takes the top spot in a 4 year election cycle. We learned from our mistakes on that one and managed to keep our country together. that seems like something you could relate to...

That's my point. In focussing on the domestic public opinion the US leaves a trail of disaster around the world.

Its not a military problem, its a foreign policy problem.

TheCurmudgeon

07-30-2012, 07:13 PM

Let me share with you the general consensus among those looking at the US from outside (as best I can tell).

Policy wise the US is seen as bipolar. Even people who would like to be friends and allies of the US shake their heads in disbelief at the wild vacillations in foreign policy most often to the detriment of one time allies. Being supported by the US in a FID is almost certainly "the kiss of death".

... two comments.

First, "general consensus among those looking at the US from outside" suffers from the same problem as the US has looking at them from the outside; a lack of cultural, historical, and political understanding. What seems to others to be bipolar makes complete sense to an American (despite the fact that it really might make no sense at all).

Second, Wyatt is right - America has a political shift every few years. It is the nature of our system. Plus democracies suffer from the whims of public opinion. We are not just bipolar, we are multi-polar sometimes to the point of being schizophrenic .

The main difference is that the meddling of the US is consistently a failure - as the people in third world countries will mockingly tell you - which is terribly sad.

Again, I agree with Wyatt. We have had successes. More correctly, we have assisted others in their successes. I will go out on a limb and make a dangerously wild generalization; the closer the country involved is to the US economically and culturally the more likely we are to understand and be able to assist. It would take a lot of work to verify this, and I am a lazy American so...:D

In any case, we are not perfect. Hopefully we at least learn from our mistakes.

JMA

07-30-2012, 08:22 PM

... two comments.

First, "general consensus among those looking at the US from outside" suffers from the same problem as the US has looking at them from the outside; a lack of cultural, historical, and political understanding. What seems to others to be bipolar makes complete sense to an American (despite the fact that it really might make no sense at all).

Second, Wyatt is right - America has a political shift every few years. It is the nature of our system. Plus democracies suffer from the whims of public opinion. We are not just bipolar, we are multi-polar sometimes to the point of being schizophrenic .

I would suggest that one needs to look at the trail of disaster these politically inspired - sometimes of a military nature - interventions have left in their wake. It is the end result that counts and not the reasons why.

Everyone and every country has its problems but it is because the US has the ability to intervene militarily or merely diplomatically on a grand scale that the failures most often result in a massive human and material cost.

The US really needs to take responsibility for its actions and make less excuses.

Again, I agree with Wyatt. We have had successes. More correctly, we have assisted others in their successes. I will go out on a limb and make a dangerously wild generalization; the closer the country involved is to the US economically and culturally the more likely we are to understand and be able to assist. It would take a lot of work to verify this, and I am a lazy American so...:D

In any case, we are not perfect. Hopefully we at least learn from our mistakes.

Nobody's perfect but it seems the US is slow to accept that the cost of these imperfections is transfered onto populations they initially attempted to help and then abandoned when the going got tough.

jcustis

07-30-2012, 10:52 PM

See its not so hard. Now try to expand your opinion piece to 500-600 words and take your chances with those are want wait to ambush thoses who dare to express their opinions fully.

You get ambushed largely because you whine too much and, as SFAT described, are boring.

You still haven't offered the JMA option for Syria have you, yet everone else is buggering it up eh?

Steve, don't waste your time, it's a trap.

TheCurmudgeon

07-31-2012, 12:28 AM

Is Assad and his Alawite supporters setting themselves up for the long fight.

On the other hand, says military analyst Jensen, the regime would make such a fallback decision in a time of desperation, and economic concerns wouldn't matter. He also says Russia would still have access to the port at Tartous, and Iran would still be able to project its influence in the region, especially if Assad brings enough firepower with him to the mountains.

"I would expect to see some consolidation — and you're already seeing some reporting of this," Jensen says, referring to chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, as well as movement of mobile launchers used to fire Scud missiles.

"Once you take those and haul yourself up along the coast in the mountains, you still have the threat to Israel, that's beneficial to Iran; you still have an ability to influence events in Lebanon — but not as much," Jensen says. "So that's what Iran loses if they fall back there, but it still is better than nothing."

http://www.tristatesradio.com/post/assad-carving-out-haven-syrias-alawites

ganulv

07-31-2012, 02:04 AM

On the other hand, says military analyst Jensen, the regime would make such a fallback decision in a time of desperation, and economic concerns wouldn't matter. He also says Russia would still have access to the port at Tartous, and Iran would still be able to project its influence in the region, especially if Assad brings enough firepower with him to the mountains.

The Alpine Fortress would seem a good bet if a government were trying to survive a zombie apocalypse. But it would seem a less good bet if a government were trying to outlast an opponent with friends with satellite intelligence they might be willing to pass along.

If the Assads were to be interested in going the well-regulated militia route they have friends who would be able to help out with that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/28/syria-army-iran-forces). They would seem an awfully hard sell given their penchant for centralization, of course.

Dayuhan

07-31-2012, 03:07 AM

Sadly it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word "intervention". Your narrow focus is upon intervention of a military nature.

Not at all. Any non-military option placed on the table should be considered. Have any attractive non-military options for intervention in Syria been tabled?

We seem to be in agreement that under no circumstances should the US attempt military intervention in Syria. You for hitherto unstated reasons and me for the simple fact that it will be yet another cock-up.

Intervening without any compelling national interest at stake and without any viable plan for intervention would certainly be a "cock-up". That's why I would not want to see any intervention take place. Since no viable plan for intervention has at any point been proposed, it's pretty difficult to suggest that there was ever a window of opportunity for intervention, by anyone.

LOL... of course you would say that, otherwise you may be required to state your case openly and clearly. Now that appears to be something you are attempting to avoid at all costs.

It's been stated openly, clearly, and repeatedly.

Non-intervention should - IMO must - be the default response to any international issue. That's common sense and it's so obvious I can't see any need to justify it. That default can be overridden if there is a compelling national interest at stake, and if there's a viable plan for intervention available, meaning a plan with a clear, concrete, limited objectives, reasonable prospects for success with the resources and within the time the intervening party is willing to commit, and without excessive risk of adverse unintended consequences.

If the compelling national interest and the viable plan can't be clearly demonstrated by those who advocate intervention, there's no reason to even begin discussing intervention.

In the case of Syria, neither the compelling national interest nor the viable plan have been credibly presented by anyone, hence my opinion that intervention should not be and should not at any point have been considered.

Is it really that hard to understand?

We have been through this 1,000 times before... who gets to decide what is in the US national interest. Only one person... the President of the USA.

Not he case at all. If you think the President of the USA can make that determination unilaterally, you really don't know much about US politics.

Obviously there's considerable debate over what the US national interest at any point is. Since nobody, anywhere, has ever made anything approaching a credible case that intervention in Syria would serve a compelling national interest, I think it's fairly safe to say that it's a decided issue. Stating that intervention has close to zero support among Americans is not an attempt to speak for the American people, it's a simple statement of what anyone paying attention to US domestic politics already knows to be true.

The current US meddling in Syria is intervention (of a non military nature at best or military intervention through the supply of arms through proxies at worst). This intervention as it is happening needs to be explained as much as those who advocate military intervention need to.

The Saudis and Qataris are not acting as US proxies. They are acting according to their own perception of their own interests, and the US is not in a position to restrain them. They do what they want to do.

On the other extreme - seemingly your position - the non intervention at any cost needs to be explained and justified given the repercussions for the region of a Syrian collapse.

I said nothing about "non-intervention at any cost". I said that intervention should not be contemplated in the absence of a compelling national interest and a viable intervention plan, neither of which have been presented anywhere that I've seen. I have yet to see the alleged repercussions delineated in any specific way. In any event the possible costs of those repercussions would have to be weighed against the probable cost of any intervention proposed to avoid them, which is hard to do without any even remotely viable plan for intervention on the table.

Well I seem to have seen that the carefully targeted use of some HE was the game changer. Maybe you missed that?

You can change the game, but that doesn't mean you can control where it goes once you've changed it... and once you've changed it you've become a player in the game.

Surely you're not still clinging to the vapid notion that all this could have been averted by tossing a few cruise missiles around...

See its not so hard. Now try to expand your opinion piece to 500-600 words and take your chances with those are want wait to ambush thoses who dare to express their opinions fully.

I see no need to repeat myself.

Anyone who accuses others of incompetence without explaining what they think could or should have been done is not expressing their opinion fully, and not saying anything of substance.

Dayuhan

07-31-2012, 03:14 AM

Being supported by the US in a FID is almost certainly "the kiss of death".

Not actually the case. As has been discussed in various FID threads, there have been quite a few FID successes, generally in cases where the government being supported has substantial capacity of its own and where the FID effort is correspondingly of limited scope.

The grand-scale "FID" efforts that involve installation of governments or support for governments that have effectively ceased to exist in any functional form have generally failed. I don't think that's because the US did them wrong, I think that's because the US should never have gotten involved in those efforts in the first place. I can't see that there is a "right way" to "install" a government or reanimate a deceased government in many of the paces where the US has tried to do these things.

Dayuhan

07-31-2012, 03:20 AM

You still haven't offered the JMA option for Syria have you, yet everone else is buggering it up eh?

I think he's still clinging to the old "3 cruise missile theory", but doesn't want to say so. I can't blame him, I wouldn't want to have to publicly defend that either.

Steve, don't waste your time, it's a trap.

I know, but it's pissing down rain and the zen of the bicycle is unavailable. Even the river's too blown out to paddle. License to waste time...

JMA

07-31-2012, 03:31 AM

Not actually the case. As has been discussed in various FID threads, there have been quite a few FID successes, generally in cases where the government being supported has substantial capacity of its own and where the FID effort is correspondingly of limited scope.

The grand-scale "FID" efforts that involve installation of governments or support for governments that have effectively ceased to exist in any functional form have generally failed. I don't think that's because the US did them wrong, I think that's because the US should never have gotten involved in those efforts in the first place. I can't see that there is a "right way" to "install" a government or reanimate a deceased government in many of the paces where the US has tried to do these things.

LOL... every time a coconut! You just can't help yourself can you?

Still waiting for you to initiate a line of discussion ... but then that would set you up for a bunch of 'smart guys' to pull your position apart. Can't have that can we?

JMA

07-31-2012, 03:32 AM

I think he's still clinging to the old "3 cruise missile theory", but doesn't want to say so. I can't blame him, I wouldn't want to have to publicly defend that either.

I know, but it's pissing down rain and the zen of the bicycle is unavailable. Even the river's too blown out to paddle. License to waste time...

This is two adults conversing? Last time I heard this sort of stuff was in the school yard.

JMA

07-31-2012, 03:50 AM

You get ambushed largely because you whine too much and, as SFAT described, are boring.

You still haven't offered the JMA option for Syria have you, yet everone else is buggering it up eh?

Steve, don't waste your time, it's a trap.

Actually I suggest it is SFAT doing the whining.

Have you not been following this thread? Better read up on it before you embarrass yourself further.

Don't worry, your mate is incapable of original thought and could not even if he would lay out his position simply and clearly in 500-600 words. He prefers like his other mate to set others to rights - as if he is so anoited to do.

OK, now any chance of you putting pen to paper... or are you just going to join in the school yard game?

Oh and another thing. You don't get any points for not understanding this most simple of simple truths.

If a sports team is losing most every game if does not take a rocket scientist to realise and know something is seriously wrong with that team. And you know what, stating the blindingly obvious - that the team is failing - does not require that the critic must have the coaching and management ability to fix the problem. He is just stating the obvious.

In the case of Syria that the situation has spiraled into civil war indicates that there has been another diplomatic/proxy military cock-up. That is blindly obvious. Get it?

JMA

07-31-2012, 03:55 AM

Anyone who accuses others of incompetence without explaining what they think could or should have been done is not expressing their opinion fully, and not saying anything of substance.

This is a classic!

I notice that this approach applies to others but never whenyou take a contrary position...

...that is because your positions self-evident to the degree that they need no explanation, right?

LOL... you are priceless.

Dayuhan

07-31-2012, 04:04 AM

In the case of Syria that the situation has spiraled into civil war indicates that there has been another diplomatic/proxy military cock-up. That is blindly obvious. Get it?

How is that a "cock-up" for anyone but the Syrians? No outside party caused this and no outside party ever had a reasonable opportunity to prevent it, so how does it become a "diplomatic/proxy military cock-up"? What did you expect anyone to do about it?

Everybody's incompetent, everything is a "cock-up", but no hint whatsoever of what you think should have been done. Priceless.

Bill Moore

07-31-2012, 06:42 AM

Mean while the conflict in Syria continues with important developments. I think the Russians are correct that a large segment of the population still supports Assad. Amazing how tainted our views are when we view the war through the lens of our media who chose sides a long time ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-conflict-west-blackmailing-russia-pass-un-resolution-145749091.html

Syria conflict: Is the West 'blackmailing' Russia to pass UN resolution?

"To our great regret, there are elements of blackmail," Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow today. "We are being told that if you do not agree to passing the resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, then we shall refuse to extend the mandate of the monitoring mission... We consider it to be an absolutely counterproductive and dangerous approach, since it is unacceptable to use monitors as bargaining chips."

"They tell us that we should persuade Assad to step down of his own free will. This is simply unrealistic," Lavrov said. "He will not leave, not because we are protecting him, but because he has the support of a very significant part of the country’s population... We will accept any decision by the Syrian people on who will govern Syria, as long as it comes from the Syrians themselves."

Interesting opinion on how the UN was to blame on the slaughter in Bosnia and a call to reject any peace plan proposed by the UN.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/07/2012724132357115759.html

Syrian troops will soon regard everyone outside their own units as potential enemies.

In rural areas, these developments mean that the rebels can effectively control large swathes of territory with relatively weak forces. Confining regular forces to bases is a dire sign for the government in any insurgency. The authorities no longer govern much of the population, and can no longer extract taxes and recruits from it.

Viewing these developments, commentators in the West are raising the spectre of "Bosnia". By this they mean the dissolution of a multi-ethnic country into warring ethnic cantonments. The West, of course, is prone to blame others for this outcome: It is the Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic who is being tried in The Hague for his war crimes.

However, the ethnic division and slaughter in Bosnia were a joint production between the ethnic paramilitaries and the UN. It was the efforts to achieve ceasefire and protect civilians that locked in place the ethnic division of the country. The US-sponsored Dayton accords ratified the ethnic separatism of the paramilitaries, completing their work for them.

A little regional tension

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/49117/World/Region/Iran-warns-Turkey-against-military-intervention-in.aspx

Iran warns Turkey against military intervention in Syria

"Any attack on Syrian territory will meet with a harsh response, and the Iranian-Syrian mutual defence agreement will be activated," the Al-Watan newspaper said.

"Turkey has received very strong warnings in the past few hours and the following message -- beware changing the rules of the game," the paper added.

"Turkey has agreed with the United States on a military intervention limited to the north of Syria, specifically the northern province of Aleppo, to pave the way for the creation of a safe haven guarded by the armed gangs."

Is Asia pivoting to the Middle East, I don't think so but the rumors are starting...

http://english.sina.com/world/2012/0730/491368.html

China denied "missile destroyer heads for joint drill with Syria

According to some reports, there will be maneuvers in Syria sea area with Iran, Syria, China and Russia partaking in. In a written response to these concerns, Chinese Ministry of National Defense has denied the reports, declaring that the Type 052 “Qingdao” (hull 113) destroyer was on the way to visit Ukraine as planned.

jcustis

07-31-2012, 07:37 AM

I saved my original comment for this thread and changed it to a PM. Don't bother replying JMA. Not worth my time either really, and no need to go back to ding-dong on the board.

Surferbeetle

07-31-2012, 08:53 AM

David,

Greatly appreciated this link,

A useful collection of articles on:

Link:http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/the-not-so-secret-war-in-syria/

Ganulv,

Greatly appreciated your shared link as well (Syrian army being aided by Iranian forces, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, Guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 May 2012 11.41 EDT). The Quds force...skilled regional trouble makers and yet they, like many military forces, are stuck in flatland (http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/) when it comes to envisioning problem sets and solutions useful to a multidimensional populace.

The Alpine Fortress would seem a good bet if a government were trying to survive a zombie apocalypse. But it would seem a less good bet if a government were trying to outlast an opponent with friends with satellite intelligence they might be willing to pass along.

If the Assads were to be interested in going the well-regulated militia route they have friends who would be able to help out with that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/28/syria-army-iran-forces). They would seem an awfully hard sell given their penchant for centralization, of course.

Bill M.,

Thought this perspective might be of interest:

Syria is different through Russian eyes, By Andrei Nekrasov, July 30, 2012 7:33 pm, Financial Times, www.ft.com

It is normal that news headlines differ from country to country, but the western world might be interested to know that Syria has not been among the main news items in Russia. If there is a report on an event that is all but impossible to ignore, such as the massacre in Tremseh on July 12 it is like this one from news2.ru: “Syrian insurgents have been instructed to kill as many people as possible.”

The Russian word boyeviki, used to describe the rebel fighters, is less neutral than “insurgents” and is just one step away from bandits or terrorists. It passed from slang into the mass media during the war in Chechnya in the 1990s as a way of branding the Chechen separatist fighters. It is also worth noting in the report cited above the use of the words “instructed to kill”. They are intended to hint clearly that the opposition are acting on the orders of some invisible masters.

Most people in Russia see the fighting there as a proxy war between their country and the west. While the humanitarian crisis receives little attention, the diplomacy is the focus of regular and detailed reports. The “struggle for peace” of foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and Russia’s UN mission, against “aggressive western powers bent on force”, are what we mostly hear about in reports on Syria.

The government encourages this proxy war narrative, as it has a vested interest in portraying itself as the defender of a nation’s geopolitical position against the west’s perceived global expansion. While many of Mr Putin’s other policies are increasingly under attack, most Russians share the divisive world view that he projects. Even the independent internet-based media’s “objective” reporting tends to present Mr Assad’s version first and as fully legitimate. That is not a result of any direct pressure from the government.

More and more, the Russian people are told that vlast – a word that does not really have an English equivalent, incorporating authority and political power with a hint of brutal force – comes from God. Attacking it, for whatever reason, is both sinful and criminal.

TheCurmudgeon

07-31-2012, 11:52 AM

Unity, no UN, and continued war; the combination that is the answer to Syria

However, the ethnic division and slaughter in Bosnia were a joint production between the ethnic paramilitaries and the UN. It was the efforts to achieve ceasefire and protect civilians that locked in place the ethnic division of the country. The US-sponsored Dayton accords ratified the ethnic separatism of the paramilitaries, completing their work for them.

Those who believe in a free Syria for all Syrians can work to avert these outcomes in their own country. First, they must ensure that the rebels are multi-ethnic and multi-denominational. Alawites and Christians, Sunni and Shia, all must have their place in the rebel ranks. Any discrimination must be strictly punished - and in public - especially when against Alawites, the sect to which Assad and his family belong.

One outcome of such a policy - if it is pursued effectively and aggressively - is that Alawite troops and other regime supporters will see that they have the option to defect and escape the regime's bloody last stand.

Each defection removes one more iota of military power from the regime and makes it that much easier to defeat.

Secondly, and more importantly, Free Syria must resist the temptations of the UN, the siren songs of the human rights community, and the diplomacy of those such as Kofi Annan. They desire only to stop the fighting, believing that the worst evil is war, not Assad and his murderous regime.

Free Syria! War is your friend and victory is the solution.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/07/2012724132357115759.html

Meanwhile ...

As evidence mounts that foreign Islamist jihadis are fighting alongside Syria’s increasingly radicalized rebels, Christians in Aleppo and elsewhere are taking up arms, often supplied by the regime.

“We saw what happened to the Christians in Iraq,” Abu George, a Christian resident of Aleppo’s Aziza district told GlobalPost. “What is going on in Aleppo is not a popular revolution for democracy and freedom. The fighters of the so-called Free Syrian Army are radical Sunnis who want to establish an Islamic state.”http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120731/aleppo-christians-islamists-jihadis-al-qaeda-iraq-sectarian-conflict

And so, as is often the case, once the authority of a regime that has been managing to keep old ethnic or religious rivalries at bay disintegrates, these old rivalries are unleashed. As always it complicates the situation, but in sadly predictable ways. Not banking on that unity thing happening.

Wyatt

07-31-2012, 04:52 PM

If a sports team is losing most every game if does not take a rocket scientist to realise and know something is seriously wrong with that team. And you know what, stating the blindingly obvious - that the team is failing - does not require that the critic must have the coaching and management ability to fix the problem. He is just stating the obvious.

I dont understand why you seem to revel in perceived failures of our military or the wars they get tasked with. We havent done everything right but we certainly have not failed at everything either. You lost your war and your country, musta sucked. No one here makes any attempt to drag you through that over and over again.

This is not to say that I want to hide from criticism but your choice of diction suggests to me anyway that you would rather us not fix our mistakes, lest it remove a favored talking point.

In addition if one is to look as foreign policy as a whole, you must consider USAID and the peace corps as it is these men and women that will most closely match the lessons from "The Ugly American" rather than the batt boy who jams 500 lumens in your face at 1am. This discussion of foreign policy efficacy has left the lambs behind for the most part.

Id like to think most of the people on this board are here to get better at whatever they do, whether its door kicker, policy wonk or a being a good neighbor as an expat. Some "constructive" on the criticism would be cool.

Ken White

07-31-2012, 05:01 PM

We have been through this 1,000 times before...Or maybe 11,000,000...
who gets to decide what is in the US national interest. Only one person... the President of the USA. Yet time and time again we get the smart guys who believe that they are somehow able to decide what is in the US national interest.Yet again, your presumption is inccorect.

George Friedman from Stratfor explains it well: LINK (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/election-presidency-and-foreign-policy?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120731&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=40132d351a3a4b308d8ae76235dc133f)

TheCurmudgeon

07-31-2012, 05:49 PM

The Syrian government says the rebel armed groups backed and funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are committing “horrific crimes” against civilians in the capital, Damascus, and the city of Aleppo.

In two letters addressed to the head of the UN Security Council and the UN secretary general, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said that the rebels backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are using civilians in Aleppo as human shields, and killing anyone who does not support their crimes.http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=333256

Interestingly enough, the exact same article can be found in the Terran Times http://tehrantimes.com/middle-east/100145-rebels-commit-horrific-crimes-syria

Also
SYRIA: Atrocities committed against Christians by US-NATO supported "Opposition" Rebels (http://http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31384)

GRAPHIC WARNING! ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY NATO’S FSA “FREEDOM FIGHTERS” (http://syria360.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/graphic-warning-atrocities-committed-by-natos-freedom-fighters/)

Which all support the counter-narrative that the rebels are not democratic freedom fighters:

Evidence to justify this presumptive mainstream narrative is hard to find. Whilst the opposition includes democrats, many of the West's preferred leaders are of limited relevance inside Syria, having for years lived comfortably abroad. Syria's regional importance and sectarian complexity also render unreliable superficially attractive comparisons to potential democratic outcomes elsewhere.

To some extent, we can use our own senses to assess who those with power on the ground in Syria are. Watch rebel videos, broadcast daily by our media, and consider how often you've heard 'Allahu Akbar' shouting Sunni protesters or fighters make any mention of democracy, tolerance, human or women's rights - or indeed women playing any role at all. The rebels' agenda is to overthrow Assad.
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=423949&MID=0&PID=0

Add to this the transition of the narrative from one of a democratic fight for freedom to jihad against the Alawites:

Rebels say the conflict in Syria has angered many Sunni Arabs, who see it as an Alawite military campaign to ethnically cleanse Syria and create a pure Alawite state stretching from the Mediterranean coast to central regions of the country.

"The Alawites are acting with vengeance. They have been fooled by Assad into believing that this is a life or death war for them and if the Sunnis win they see themselves as being doomed," Salloum said.

"Look at their hatred," Salloum said, referring to a video widely circulated by Syrian activists that purportedly shows Alawite pro-Assad militiamen, known as shabbiha, using a knife to slit the throat of a handcuffed young rebel male in Idlib in what Sunnis say reveals deep seated sectarian grudges.

"The Alawites have taken over everything in Syria, political power, the economy, the state jobs, and now they want to continue enslaving our Sunni brothers and sisters, they tell them your God is Assad," said Bin Shamer.http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jul-31/182750-arab-islamist-fighters-eager-to-join-syria-rebels.ashx#axzz2291YCdJm

Oh what a tangled web ... and then there is the Iranian version of events along with the associated threats:

Iran's foreign minister accused Israel of being behind "a conspiracy against Syria."

"It is completely ridiculous and delusive to believe that there is a possibility of creating a vacuum in the leadership in Syria," Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said. "We call upon the people of the region to be fully aware and not to move in the wrong direction, because there will be severe consequences that will go beyond the borders of the region to the outside world."http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-29/middleeast/world_meast_syria-unrest_1_aleppo-northern-syrian-city-syrian-opposition/3

Add to that Russian interests in the port and China's and Russia's concerns that if human rights violations constitute reasons for foreign intervention then the idea of sovereignty is dead and they are in trouble. This situation is turning into a witches brew of interests with a multitude of players stirring the pot. Will they be able to keep it from boiling over beyond the borders of Syria?

TheCurmudgeon

07-31-2012, 06:37 PM

Thinking about this it would now appear that the options are very limited. Direct military intervention will require some legal justification no matter who executes it unless the Arab League has some provisions that allow for some type of Peace Keeping force. NATO involvement would require a real threat to Turkey which, as yet, does not exist. I am unaware of any other pacts that could be invoked and P2K does not realistically hold water in this case. It is a political conflict, not a genocide or a humanitarian disaster. Russia and China may come around allowing UN action, but the situation would have to be a clear threat to them in some way before they would go along.

If direct military action were undertaken the number of militaries capable of doing it are probably just as limited. US/NATO, Russia, and that is about it. The UN could hodgepodge something but I doubt it would work. Everyone would have an ethnic or religious argument against one force or another. US/NATO would be pro-christian and pro-Israeli, Russia would be pro-Alawite. Perhaps China could do the job.

Less than military intervention options are, in effect, what everyone is trying now. And the conflict IS extending beyond the borders of Syria. Not so much boiling over into other nations although that may still happen, but more like a whirlpool sucking others into the conflict, the Sunni fighters most notably. This does not even take into account the WMDs which any number of outside players have an interest in either securing, obtaining, using, or destroying them.

As much as I hate to say it, SHOULD a peace keeping/peace enforcement force ever be needed, there are going to be a limited number of militaries capable of doing the job.

davidbfpo

07-31-2012, 06:47 PM

An interesting comment by ORG on an issue which is rarely examined, just reported as death and injuries:
The count of the death toll is imperfect, but attempts are being made to replace unsubstantiated rhetoric with reliable records

Link:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/articles_multimedia/politics_numbers_syria

This issue appeared IIRC during the Iraqi years when a medical publication, IIRC The Lancet, published an estimate of those who had died.

Entropy

07-31-2012, 07:47 PM

George Friedman from Stratfor explains it well: LINK (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/election-presidency-and-foreign-policy?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120731&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=40132d351a3a4b308d8ae76235dc133f)

Thanks for that, Ken! Friedman has a bit of a mixed record, but I think this piece is very good.

Entropy

07-31-2012, 07:48 PM

Steve, don't waste your time, it's a trap.

Sorry, can't resist:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/384/Atrapitis.gif

JMA

07-31-2012, 08:53 PM

Or maybe 11,000,000... Yet again, your presumption is inccorect.

George Friedman from Stratfor explains it well: LINK (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/election-presidency-and-foreign-policy?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120731&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=40132d351a3a4b308d8ae76235dc133f)

Thank you for that.

Perhaps I should explain more clearly that if anyone determines what is in the "best interests of the US" it is the President and not any number of random USians in discussion groups such as this who often believe they are so anointed to make such a statement. So out here in the colonies one would pay more attention to what comes out of the Whitehouse in this regard than from the claims of any individual. Seems to be a cultural thing with USians that they all believe that they and they alone know what is in the "best interests of the US".

JMA

07-31-2012, 08:55 PM

Sorry, can't resist:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/384/Atrapitis.gif

Maybe should consider introducing an age restriction around here?

TheCurmudgeon

07-31-2012, 09:25 PM

An interesting look at Russia's strategic interests in Syria beyond Assad ...

In 2009, by decree of then President Medvedev, Russia established its National Security Strategy to 2020. The main objectives of this strategy are the ‘sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, and likewise the preservation of civil peace, political and social stability’.[7] To achieve these objectives Russia must guarantee the security of its borders, which requires a degree of influence over its neighbours, either through cooperative measures or otherwise.[8] In that vein, arms sales and economic assistance to Syria have continued to this day. These provide Russia some influence over the Assad regime and, it is hoped, some indirectly over Turkey. This influence, and the control it helps give Russia over the Black Sea, is a key factor explaining Russia’s actions in the Syrian crisis. Its actions regarding Syria fit into a broader pattern of manoeuvres designed to secure Russian control over the Black Sea, and thereby guarantee the security of Russia’s borders.
http://theriskyshift.com/2012/07/a-strait-explanation-for-russias-interest-in-tartus-part-1/#ixzz22ElDe34n

Russia's only existing naval base outside the Soviet Union is located in the Syrian port of Tartus. A squadron of Russian navy ships, including several assault ships carrying marines, is currently heading to Tartus in a show of support for a longtime ally whom Moscow protected from international sanctions and continued to supply with weapons.http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/navy-chief-russia-naval-bases-abroad-16867411#.UBhLQkRNDR0

Meanwhile the British and the Russians both have ships in or headed to the Eastern Mediterranean:

Barely mentioned by the mainstream media, the warships involved in the Cougar 12 naval exercise will also participate in the planned evacuation of "British nationals from the Middle East, should the ongoing conflict in Syria further spill across borders into neighboring Lebanon and Jordan.":

The British would likely send the HMS Illustrious, a helicopter carrier, along with the HMS Bulwark, an amphibious ship, as well as an advanced destroyer to provide defenses for the task force. On board will be several hundred Royal Marine commandos, as well as a complement of AH-64 attack helicopters (the same ones used in Libya last year). A fleet of French ships, including the Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier, carrying a complement of Rafale fighter aircraft, are expected to join them.

Those forces are expected stay offshore and could escort specially chartered civilian ships meant to pick up foreign nationals fleeing Syria and surrounding countries. (ibtimes.com, 24 July 2012).

Sources in the British Ministry of Defense, while confirming the Royal Navy's "humanitarian mandate" in the planned evacuation program, have categorically denied "any intention of a combat role for British forces [against Syria]". http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32079

Russia 'sends six warships to Syria' but denies it has anything to do with growing tensions (http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171441/Russia-sends-warships-Syria-denies-growing-tensions.html)

Who says this conflict doesn't have the potential for rapid and uncontrolled expansion beyond Syria's borders written all over it. It is starting to look like Sarajevo circa 1914:eek:

TheCurmudgeon

07-31-2012, 09:47 PM

Is Syria totally hopeless? There’s one shred of hope: if, and that’s a big if, the global powers that be — the five permanent members of the United Nations, the Arab League and Iran — could find the political will, they could unite, step in and get all the factions to stop the killing. They could then establish safe havens for all civilians, and launch an all-inclusive dialogue in which the Sunni majority and all minority groups are represented. Of course, Al Qaeda and other radical foreign militias must be kept out in the cold. http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/jamil-maidan-flores-solving-syrias-puzzle/533503

Not positive, but I am pretty sure Jakarta is not in Kansas ...

JMA

07-31-2012, 10:37 PM

Who says this conflict doesn't have the potential for rapid and uncontrolled expansion beyond Syria's borders written all over it. It is starting to look like Sarajevo circa 1914:eek:

Don't panic ;)

I was told by one of the smart guys around here that:

The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria and aren't going to do anything more than vote against intervention at the UN. The Russians aren't going to stick their necks out for Assad either, in any way beyond verbiage.

Personally I wouldn't take that to the bank...

TheCurmudgeon

07-31-2012, 10:47 PM

Dayuhan

07-31-2012, 11:16 PM

Friedman has a bit of a mixed record, but I think this piece is very good.

Agree on both counts. I got that in my inbox as well, and thought of posting a link, but Ken beat me to it. Stratfor irritates me at times but I still stay on their list, though I've never gone to the paid level.

Perhaps I should explain more clearly that if anyone determines what is in the "best interests of the US" it is the President and not any number of random USians in discussion groups such as this who often believe they are so anointed to make such a statement.

Neither of the above, as explained in the piece Ken provided.

So out here in the colonies one would pay more attention to what comes out of the Whitehouse in this regard than from the claims of any individual.

Has anything come out of the White House to suggest a belief that the US has sufficiently compelling interests in Syria to justify intervention? Not that I know of.

Out here in the ex-colonies we have opinions about US interests, but since our opinions don't mean anything to anyone we monitor the debate and keep track of perceptions of interests. So far as I can see the idea that US interests in Syria are sufficiently compelling to justify the expense and risk of intervention has little traction with any significant political faction.

Seems to be a cultural thing with USians that they all believe that they and they alone know what is in the "best interests of the US".

Has anyone here suggested that "they alone know what is in the best interests of the USA"? Since when has the observation that nobody has presented a compelling case for an interest in Syria sufficient to justify intervention and no significant political faction supports such intervention equated to an attempt to define what is in the national interest?

Personally, I've taken two positions here.

Regarding intervention in general, I've stated the opinion that non-intervention should be the default choice. To override that default two things have to be in place:

1. A compelling national interest
2. A concrete, practical, limited and viable plan for intervention

Obviously the determination of whether the interest is sufficiently compelling and whether the plan is viable have to be made through debate among the various influences that make up foreign policy, but given the expense and risk of intervention, the burden of proof must be on those who propose or support intervention.

If you wish to contest that opinion, feel free to do so, but it might better be done on another thread.

Regarding US intervention is Syria specifically, I've stated that public support for intervention is low (understatement), and that no significant political faction has supported intervention or presented a convincing case for a US interest that is sufficiently compelling to even begin to make a case for intervention. Those opinions are based on observation.

I've also stated that as far as I know, no concrete, practical, limited and viable plan for intervention, military or otherwise, has at any stage been put on the table.

If anyone has evidence to suggest that either of those perceptions is inaccurate, please provide it and I'll happily reconsider those opinions.

Intervention by non-US parties seems too hypothetical a construct to be worth discussion.

I've also stated that in my opinion anyone who claims that policy to date has been stupid, incompetent, duplicitous, mendacious, or a cock-up cannot be taken seriously unless they are willing to say what they think should have been done and what they think the results of that action would have been.

I did say that I believe there might possibly be circumstances in which intervention to secure WMD stocks could be justified. That opinion is based on two points:

First, it is possible that in some circumstance the threat of terrorists gaining access to Syrian WMD sotcks might be sufficiently compelling to justify intervention.

Second, finding, removing, or destroying WMD stocks is a concrete, specific, limited mission suitable for accomplishment by military force... unlike, say, "nation-building".

I have great confidence in the ability of the US military to gain access to any point in Syria and manage any weapon stocks that are there. The intel is a bigger question mark, but that would have to be assessed by those who make the decision. Anyone here who is in a position to know is not in a position to say.

I have no confidence at all in our capacity to build nations, not because the US gets it wrong but because the vagueness of the goals and the lack of appropriate means make it virtually impossible to get right. It's a task that should not be taken on, in Syria or, ideally, anywhere else... IMO of course.

I don't see how any of that constitutes an attempt to unilaterally define US interests, though given the lack of any coherent argument claiming a US interest sufficient to justify intervention and the lack of support for intervention among both the public and the policymakers I think it's safe to say at this point that no such interest exists. US interests are defined, ultimately, by Americans, and they seem to have reached a consensus on this one.

Dayuhan

07-31-2012, 11:19 PM

China may not give a rat's ass about Assad, but they are interested in Syrian oil.

Iran Aids Syrian Oil Exports to China, Report Says (http://http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/iran-aids-syrian-oil-exports-to-china-report-says-213060.html)

Syria's oil exports are minimal, and until recently went mostly to Europe. The Chinese may be buying a bit of oil to circumvent sanctions and slip some money to Assad, but there's not enough oil in the picture to mean anything to them at all on a level of energy strategy.

Who says this conflict doesn't have the potential for rapid and uncontrolled expansion beyond Syria's borders written all over it. It is starting to look like Sarajevo circa 1914:eek:

How so? What specific scenarios do we fear? Is intervention likely to reduce or exacerbate that potential?

JMA

07-31-2012, 11:23 PM

China may not give a rat's ass about Assad, but they are interested in Syrian oil.

Iran Aids Syrian Oil Exports to China, Report Says (http://http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/iran-aids-syrian-oil-exports-to-china-report-says-213060.html)

That's nice of the Chinese.

There the US/EU were thinking that sanctions were hurting the Assad regime... then along comes dear old uncle Hong and helps them out.

Well perhaps like Russia the penny will start to drop that there may well be penalties in the future for their relationship with Assad. So without Assad the Sino-Syrian relationship may be radically changed. So does anyone really buy the opinion that "the Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria"?

Oh yes and the other smart guy said:

It's far from certain that even a worst case scenario in Syria would have a major adverse effect on US interests in the region.

So we can all sleep well!

JMA

07-31-2012, 11:35 PM

Has anyone here suggested that "they alone know what is in the best interests of the USA"? Since when has the observation that nobody has presented a compelling case for an interest in Syria sufficient to justify intervention and no significant political faction supports such intervention equated to an attempt to define what is in the national interest?

From the nature in which certain individuals repeatedly claim what is and what is not "in the best interests of the US" but not adding IMHO or "as I see it" or "as I read public opinion" it is clear that they believe they know and can speak on behalf of the US people (or to attempt to use it to weight their argument especially when being an American in a foreign country and impress the locals).

And this case needs to be presented to you? Who exactly are you to make such demands on anyone... especially when you are so economic with taking any quotable position yourself?

JMA

07-31-2012, 11:41 PM

Personally, I've taken two positions here.

Regarding intervention in general, I've stated the opinion that non-intervention should be the default choice. To override that default two things have to be in place:

1. A compelling national interest
2. A concrete, practical, limited and viable plan for intervention

Regarding US intervention is Syria specifically, I've stated that public support for intervention is low (understatement), and that no significant political faction has supported intervention or presented a convincing case for a US interest that is sufficiently compelling to even begin to make a case for intervention. Those opinions are based on observation.

Merely two personal opinions... to which you are entitled.

No I don't wish to comment on your opinions but would note that you appear to have no stated interest in the outcome for Syria or the region or the ME. One could probably read something into that.

Entropy

07-31-2012, 11:42 PM

Maybe should consider introducing an age restriction around here?

I guess you're not a Star Wars fan? If you're not, you probably don't get that the picture is a joke about the movie. "It's a trap" is a bit of a cultural meme to some "USians." Ironically, "USasians" is a term which, ironically, is a meme in other circles....

Dayuhan

07-31-2012, 11:55 PM

That's nice of the Chinese.

There the US/EU were thinking that sanctions were hurting the Assad regime... then along comes dear old uncle Hong and helps them out.

Of course they'll help anyone who's an irritant to us. We'd do the same in the other direction. The Chinese don't approve of sanctions in general and will try to undercut them wherever they are applied, as long as there's no risk to them.

Well perhaps like Russia the penny will start to drop that there may well be penalties in the future for their relationship with Assad. So without Assad the Sino-Syrian relationship may be radically changed. So does anyone really buy the opinion that "the Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria"?

Don't bet on there being any penalty. The Chinese did plenty of business with Saddam, with or without sanctions, and they are major players in the post-Saddam Iraqi oil industry. When money talks, memory fades. If Assad falls the Chinese will do business with whoever gets in. Of course Syria's oil exports are insignificant and the Chinese have no major vested interests in Syria, so no, the Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Assad. They'll prop him up as long as he irritates the US, when his utility is used up they'll drop him and deal with whoever gets in.

Of course that whole conversation started with the quite bizarre notion that fear of notably unspecified repercussions from China or Russia dissuaded the US from an intervention that the US never had any interest in undertaking in the first place.

Dayuhan

08-01-2012, 12:14 AM

you appear to have no stated interest in the outcome for Syria or the region or the ME. One could probably read something into that.

Are you discussing my personal interest or my perception of US interests? Two different things.

Obviously this is all very messy for Syria, but that doesn't mean the US should do something about it, or ever had an opportunity to do something about it. There are of course regional security risks, but much of the discussion of those risks seems remarkably unspecific. Again, the US never had a meaningful opportunity to avert those risks, and US intervention is as likely to exacerbate those risks as to avert them, IMO of course.

My belief that the US should not intervene in Syria is not based on absence of interest, it's based on a belief that there is no compelling US interest in intervention, no popular support for intervention, no viable opportunity for intervention, and thus no good argument supporting intervention.

Stating that the US can't solve a problem and shouldn't try does not suggest that the person making the statement believes that there is no problem. Not every problem is amenable to solution by US intervention.

From the nature in which certain individuals repeatedly claim what is and what is not "in the best interests of the US" but not adding IMHO or "as I see it" or "as I read public opinion" it is clear that they believe they know and can speak on behalf of the US people (or to attempt to use it to weight their argument especially when being an American in a foreign country and impress the locals).

Seems to me that "IMO" should be implicit in anything written here, unless stated otherwise and appropriately referenced. Otherwise it would be in every sentence, and that would be cumbersome. When you accuse others of incompetence we assume that to be your opinion, though you generally do not state it to be so. We also dismiss the opinion, as you generally decline to mention what you think a competent alternative policy would have been.

And this case needs to be presented to you?

Any case for intervention by the US needs to be presented to the American people... democracy and all that, remember? Ideally it would also be effectively presented to the populace of the nation where intervention is proposed, and to the neighbors, who can make intervention more difficult.

If no case is presented, it's reasonably safe to assume that none exists. If a case is presented, that assessment would have to be reconsidered.

especially when you are so economic with taking any quotable position yourself?

I' think I've made my position quite clear. Do I need to repeat yet again? Seems awfully repetitive, especially when addressing someone who repeatedly implies that something could have been done but can't or won't say what.

JMA

08-01-2012, 12:28 AM

... Syria, so no, the Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Assad.

No you said:

The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria.

Big difference.

JMA

08-01-2012, 12:47 AM

Are you discussing my personal interest or my perception of US interests? Two different things.

Well I'm absolutely not interested in your "perception of US interests". That I can get looking through the news.

Obviously this is all very messy for Syria, but that doesn't mean the US should do something about it, or ever had an opportunity to do something about it.

What? Are you trying to say that the US has not been meddling in Syrian affairs for the last 16 months (or so)? Yes, the opportunities were indeed limited due to the involvement of Russia and China in the matter at various levels.

My belief that the US should not intervene in Syria is not based on absence of interest, it's based on a belief that there is no compelling US interest in intervention, no popular support for intervention, no viable opportunity for intervention, and thus no good argument supporting intervention.

That is merely your opinion... to which you are entitled.

Seems to me that "IMO" should be implicit in anything written here, unless stated otherwise and appropriately referenced. Otherwise it would be in every sentence, and that would be cumbersome. When you accuse others of incompetence we assume that to be your opinion, though you generally do not state it to be so. We also dismiss the opinion, as you generally decline to mention what you think a competent alternative policy would have been.

As it is obvious that a slide into civil war was not in the interests of any of the involved nations that it has is a sure indicator of failure.

As I stated with Libya arming the opposition and then stating a desire for a peaceful transition is quite ridiculous.

Then once the civl war threatens to suck in neighbouring or regional countries to maintain the pretense that this could not be foreseen is simply a demonstration of incompetence.

To watch and comment on the implosion of Syria is a simple observation and there is no onus on the observer to offer an alternative solution.

Dayuhan

08-01-2012, 12:51 AM

Big difference.

Not that big. Either way it's not a major issue for them. The oil involved is insignificant and neither Assad nor Syria are in any way key interests for the Chinese. Of course they'll ignore sanctions and vote against intervention at the UN as a matter of general policy rather than from any specific policy regarding Syria, but I see no reason to think they have the desire or the means to get seriously involved, and the idea that fear of (again, unspecified) repercussions from China prevented the US from undertaking an intervention that virtually nobody in the US wanted in the first place is... far-fetched, to put it politely.

Wyatt

08-01-2012, 01:44 AM

I found this article pretty interesting and had not seen it posted yet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria

Almost every rebel brigade has adopted a Sunni religious name with rhetoric exalting jihad and martyrdom, even when the brigades are run by secular commanders and manned by fighters who barely pray.

"Religion is a major rallying force in this revolution – look at Ara'our [a rabid sectarian preacher], he is hysterical and we don't like him but he offers unquestionable support to the fighters and they need it," the activist said later.

Another FSA commander in Deir el-Zour city explained the role of religion in the uprising: "Religion is the best way to impose discipline. Even if the fighter is not religious he can't disobey a religious order in battle."

Seeing as how they are keen to make new bedfellows, I am curious to know what if any precautions the Saudis and Qataris are taking to monitor the support they are providing. I doubt the Saudis have forgotten that they were considered apostate regimes by AQ not to long ago.

from a physician in the article

"They are stealing the revolution from us and they are working for the day that comes after."

Glad he can see it as well. How do you prevent this? Being more brutal than AQ affiliated groups seems like a tough line to walk if your trying to have freedom/democracy of any sort...

ganulv

08-01-2012, 02:11 AM

How do you prevent this? Being more brutal than AQ affiliated groups seems like a tough line to walk if your trying to have freedom/democracy of any sort...

It seems facile to me to portray the relationship as parasitic rather than symbiotic. In the words of Chris Hedges (http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/88/chris-hedges.html):

There are times when the only choice left is to pick up a weapon to defend your family, neighborhood and city. But those who proved most adept at defending Sarajevo invariably came from the criminal class. When they were not shooting at Serbian soldiers they were looting the apartments of ethnic Serbs in Sarajevo and often executing them, as well as terrorizing their fellow Muslims.

ETA: I’m not trying to say this is a Muslim thing. Or even a religious thing, though it often enough throughout human history has manifested itself through that medium.

TheCurmudgeon

08-01-2012, 02:13 AM

WASHINGTON—The U.S. has given a Washington-based group clearance to provide direct financial assistance to the Free Syrian Army, a new bid by the Obama administration to support Syria's opposition.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444405804577561482242140956.html

Surferbeetle

08-01-2012, 02:20 AM

Glad he can see it as well. How do you prevent this? Being more brutal than AQ affiliated groups seems like a tough line to walk if your trying to have freedom/democracy of any sort...

In Iraq many of the educated, the middle class, and the rich left for safer climes while the poor often sheltered in place as best they could.

Observed that migration pattern while working the ca side of things (mainly reconstruction, but some humanitarian as well) in some of the larger cities and around the edges of Kurdistan during OIF1 & OND.

It would be interesting to see a flash demographic study of Syrian IDP's and Refugees.

Syrian Refugees Are Stung by a Hostile Reception in Iraq, By DURAID ADNAN and ROD NORDLAND, Published: July 29, 2012, NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/syrian-refugees-stung-by-hostile-reception-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all

He expected a warm welcome. After all, his country had taken in 1.2 million Iraqis during their recent war, far more than any of Iraq’s other neighbors, and had allowed them to work, send their children to public schools and receive state medical care.

Instead, Mr. Muafak found himself and his family locked up in a school under guard with several hundred other Syrians, forbidden to leave to visit relatives in Iraq or to do anything else.

vs.

No Place Like Home: Iraq’s Refugee Crisis Threatens the Future of Iraq, Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 8February 26, 2010 12:25 PM, By: Rachel Schneller at Jamestown Foundation, http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=36089

The massive upheaval of Iraq’s population that has occurred since 2006 threatens the long-term stability of the country, regardless of short-term gains achieved through the political process or military surges. Symptomatic of a destabilized Iraq, displaced populations are themselves a source of future destabilization. Many Middle Eastern countries experienced instability resulting from Palestinians displaced after the establishment of Israel in 1948, the last refugee crisis of comparable proportions in the region. Problems originating from the Palestinian refugee crisis continue today, and the wheels of a new refugee crisis have been set in motion with over four million of Iraq’s original 26 million inhabitants displaced since 2003, representing about 20 percent of its pre-war population. [1] An estimated two million Iraqi refugees now reside predominantly in Syria and Jordan, and an additional estimated 1.6 million are internally displaced persons (IDPs). [2]

Iraq has a long history of migration both inside and outside of the country. Under Saddam, Shi’a Arabs and Kurds fled to Iran to escape oppression. The Ba’athist regime actively attempted to alter the demographics of the predominantly Kurdish north and the Shi’a south. In 2003, Iraqis of all ethnicities and religions temporarily fled the general violence of the U.S.-led military intervention. But the displacement that has occurred since the February 2006 bombing of the Samarra mosque affected all of Iraq’s different groups in unprecedented proportions, altering the demographic fabric of the nation for the foreseeable future. [3] Sunnis fled Shi’a-dominated areas for predominantly Sunni provinces or went abroad; Shi’a fled Sunni provinces for predominantly Shi’a provinces or abroad; Arabs evacuated Kurdish areas of Iraq and Christians have largely left the country altogether (Al-Sabah, January 16). [4] As an unintended consequence of the U.S. invasion, Iraqis of all ethnic and religious backgrounds who have worked for Coalition forces have been targeted for assassination.

Dayuhan

08-01-2012, 02:29 AM

What? Are you trying to say that the US has not been meddling in Syrian affairs for the last 16 months (or so)?

Meddling perhaps, though to a minimal and generally ineffectual extent. That doesn't mean the US ever made a serious effort to alter conditions in Syria or ever had the opportunity to do so. Looks to me mostly like show.

Yes, the opportunities were indeed limited due to the involvement of Russia and China in the matter at various levels.

Are you going to specify what Russian and Chinese involvement you're talking about and how it supposedly restrained the US, or do you expect us to take that opinion as revealed truth, without any supporting evidence?

That is merely your opinion... to which you are entitled.

Since you can neither provide nor cite any argument suggesting a compelling US interest in intervention, popular support for intervention, and/or viable opportunity for intervention, may I take it that you agree with that opinion, or at least that if you disagree, you do so without substantial cause?

As it is obvious that a slide into civil war was not in the interests of any of the involved nations that it has is a sure indicator of failure.

Things happen that are not in the interests of the US, or any other nation. That's not necessarily an indication of "failure". It can be an indication that the nation or nations in question concluded that the risks and costs of trying to alter or prevent those events exceeded the risks and costs of simply dealing with the events as they emerge.

As I stated with Libya arming the opposition and then stating a desire for a peaceful transition is quite ridiculous.

Is the US arming the opposition? Not that I've heard. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, yes, possibly others, but they do so on their own accord, in pursuit of their own interests.

The inevitable statement of a desire for peaceful transition seems to me more of an obligatory mantra than a realistic plan. I think everybody knew from the start that this wasn't going to be peaceful. There are things diplomats are expected to say.

Then once the civl war threatens to suck in neighbouring or regional countries to maintain the pretense that this could not be foreseen is simply a demonstration of incompetence.

That "threat" remains unspecified and largely hypothetical. Of course the potential for regional impacts was foreseen. Trying to manage and contain a foreseen risk rather than trying to prevent the risk from emerging would only be incompetent if there was a viable means to prevent it. If an attempt to avert the risk was judged to have greater risks and costs than managing and containing the hypothetical threats as they emerge, I can't see any incompetence in the picture.

I do not see how a Syrian civil war with the US in the middle of it would be less a threat to regional security that a Syrian civil war without the US in the middle of it. Since nobody has suggested any means by which the US could have prevented a civil war, what other alternative was there?

To watch and comment on the implosion of Syria is a simple observation and there is no onus on the observer to offer an alternative solution.

If a comment claims that any player in the picture was "incompetent" without any suggestion of what could or should have been done better or differently, the comment in question has little if any meaning or value.

Anyone can criticize and blame: that's easy, especially from a distance. Criticism and blame without substance, support, or any suggestion of what the critic would rather have seen done will generally be ignored, for good reason.

Entropy

08-01-2012, 02:41 AM

As it is obvious that a slide into civil war was not in the interests of any of the involved nations that it has is a sure indicator of failure.

If an "involved" state, such as Saudi Arabia, thought a civil war was a necessary step to achieve the goal of an allied, Sunni-dominated Syria, then civil was , and is, in the interest of Saudi Arabia and like-minded states.

Civil war is not in the interest of other nations (see, especially, Iran) but I'm not so certain that is a "sure indicator of failure" for those countries. After all, nations have interests but that doesn't automatically mean they have the capability to bring those interests into being.

Ken White

08-01-2012, 04:25 AM

Perhaps I should explain more clearly that if anyone determines what is in the "best interests of the US" it is the President and not any number of random USians in discussion groups such as this who often believe they are so anointed to make such a statement.You need to re-read the Friedman article. Those random Americans are drivers of many things...
So out here in the colonies one would pay more attention to what comes out of the Whitehouse in this regard than from the claims of any individual.That would seem to be a norm. You 'out there' are of course aware that what comes out of the White House often bears absolutely no relationship to reality and you might be well advised to pay a bit more attention to random Americans... :wry:

And again, re-read the article. As you have finally realized, US foreign policy is driven by domestic politics, stuff that comes out of the WH is addressed almost always to a domestic audience and may be the very opposite of what's actually being done internationally.
Seems to be a cultural thing with USians that they all believe that they and they alone know what is in the "best interests of the US".I would not presume to tell you what is in the best interests of South Africa yet you often presume to tell us what is in the best interest of the US... :eek:

You get that wrong about as often as does the White House... :D

slapout9

08-01-2012, 06:47 AM

Link to NBC report that Syrian rebels will be supplied with Man Launched Ant-Aircraft Missiles, supposed supplied by Turkey. You will have to watch a 30 second commercial before the report:(.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=48429494?

Dayuhan

08-01-2012, 08:20 AM

Print version of the above, for those who, like me, don't like getting news from video...

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/usa-syria-missiles-idINDEE87001O20120801

Syrian rebels acquire surface-to-air missiles - report

Rebels fighting to depose Syrian president Bashar al Assad have for the first time acquired a small supply of surface-to-air missiles, according to a news report that a Western official did not dispute.

NBC News reported Tuesday night that the rebel Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen of the weapons, which were delivered to them via neighboring Turkey, whose moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad's departure with increasing vehemence.

Indications are that the U.S. government, which has said it opposes arming the rebels, is not responsible for the delivery of the missiles...

What they actually got, and whether they received the training required to use what they got effectively, remains unknown. We shall see.

TheCurmudgeon

08-01-2012, 06:30 PM

Much of what I have added in the last few days was to raise awareness that Syria is no Tunisia, or Libya, or Egypt, or even Yemen or Iran. There are two reasons for the distinctions.

First, the length of time this has gone on. It has been almost a year-and-a-half since this all began. Plenty of time for it to morph into something other than what the malcontents in Syria originally intended. The transition should have been expected. It is hard to tell yet what will happen in Tunisia and Libya but Egypt is clearly leaning towards an Islamic state. I would suspect that the others will follow (or maybe they are leading, just can't tell). In any case, those on the battlefield are changing the character of the fight. It is very possible that some of the brigades will be directly controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda (yeah, the last one is a stretch, but who can tell for sure). In any case, the war it is a changin.

Second, the number of players who have a real stake in the outcome, either in Syria or in the UN, would appear to outnumber those in the previous revolutions. Russia has a military instillation in Syria that is part of their long term military strategy to keep access to the Mediterranean. Turkey is supplying arms to the rebels and wants to limit Kurdish influence in the final state. Iran fears losing an alley in the fight against the Zionists. Israel fears another fundamentalist Islamic state on its borders. Everyone is interested in what will happen to the alleged WMDs. So again, the risk here is not so much that there will be a civil war with the associated humanitarian ramifications, human rights violations, and war crimes. I am a cynic. What happens in Syria stays in Syria (at least until after the war is over). The risk is that what happens if Syria triggers events beyond its borders.

How so? What specific scenarios do we fear? Is intervention likely to reduce or exacerbate that potential?

So, to answer this question I offer two senarios:

The Turkish Escalation. In this case events on the Turkish border trigger a larger conflict. Two possible events come to mind. First, there could be another shoot-down of a Turkish aircraft. This could cause the Turks to retaliate by taking out an ADA site. Assad seizes on the opportunity to call in help from the Iranians who oblige

Reports claim that a message sent to Ankara by Iran warned that “any attack on Syrian territory will be met with a harsh response and the Iranian-Syrian mutual defense agreement will be activated.”Iran warns Turkey of harsh response (http://me-confidential.com/5230-iran-warns-turkey-of-harsh-response.html)

The other possibility is that Assad, knowing full well that Turkey is arming the rebels from a town just inside the border. Using a similar justification that Turkey used to go after PKK fighters in Iraq, Syrian forces attack and destroy arms intended for Syria while they are still in Turkey.Turkish commandos enter Iraq (http://http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/19/172528.html)

In any case the result is the same. In the end Turkey, citing mutual defense, drags the US into it. The Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz, and the fun begins.

The Israeli Gambit. In this scenario members of Islamic leaning rebel forces threaten to take over an installation where WMDs could be stored. Israel, acting independently and citing its own survival as justification, send troops into Syria to secure the weapons. Things don't go as well as planned and either the troops get bogged down or the Syrians actually make good on their threat to us chemical weapons should foreigners enter the fray. Syria claims this is an attack on them by Israel and calls in Iran, who obliges with retaliatory missile strikes on Israeli military installations.

These are just two possibilities. I am sure others could be thought up. I am sure some will say they are ridiculous but I think it was just as ridiculous to think that an assassination of an Austrian Archduke by a member of the Black Hand would lead to deaths of over two million French and British Soldiers. The conditions external to the country already exist along with the associated fears by the parties who have a hand in this matter. The potential exists in the tensions that have been building up in the region for years, particularly the rediscovery of a common Islamic heritage and identity. The only question is whether there will be a spark significant enough to set of a chain of events that take things beyond the Syrian boarders.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about nation-building. I am talking about what, if any, actions could be taken to enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution rather than let things simmer until they spin out of control. My concern is not modernization or expanding democracy but in keeping a lid on the powder keg. Yes, I am being a little dramatic, but that seems to be the best way for me to get my point across.

At this point I see no legal justification to act. Future events may provide one. I don't like the option of American military intervention. I actually DO prefer the Chinese as they provide the least tainted option. The Russians are my second favorite since they already have a base of operations.

JMA

08-01-2012, 07:24 PM

You need to re-read the Friedman article. Those random Americans are drivers of many things...That would seem to be a norm. You 'out there' are of course aware that what comes out of the White House often bears absolutely no relationship to reality and you might be well advised to pay a bit more attention to random Americans... :wry:

Thats a waste of time as their is no US consensus. But then again I suspect that with a foreign policy record like the US it is understandable that nobody wants to take responsibility for what has happened in the past or even yesterday. I am beginning to see it as a cultural phenomenon. Pretty sad really.

And again, re-read the article. As you have finally realized, US foreign policy is driven by domestic politics, stuff that comes out of the WH is addressed almost always to a domestic audience and may be the very opposite of what's actually being done internationally.

This brings us right back to the start of all this. This is why the US foreign policy is seen as bipolar and so often jaw-droppingly incompetent. I understand you when you say that's how the US is - and its not going to change - and I repeat to you that because of this the outside world -increasingly - is losing both respect and fear for the US. I would go further and suggest the relationships between the US and Third World countries is more like that of a John and a prostitute - in that as long as the US keeps throwing cash around they will get the attention. Of course when the cash gets tight their calls might not get returned.

I would not presume to tell you what is in the best interests of South Africa yet you often presume to tell us what is in the best interest of the US... :eek:

You can say what you like about South Africa - I don't have an immature sensitivity over criticism of that nature which would lead to a knee jerk reaction.

You get that wrong about as often as does the White House... :D

And you get it right all the time?

JMA

08-01-2012, 07:37 PM

Dayuhan

08-01-2012, 11:16 PM

Much of what I have added in the last few days was to raise awareness that Syria is no Tunisia, or Libya, or Egypt, or even Yemen or Iran.

I think most here are well aware of that.

First, the length of time this has gone on. It has been almost a year-and-a-half since this all began. Plenty of time for it to morph into something other than what the malcontents in Syria originally intended. The transition should have been expected. It is hard to tell yet what will happen in Tunisia and Libya but Egypt is clearly leaning towards an Islamic state. I would suspect that the others will follow (or maybe they are leading, just can't tell). In any case, those on the battlefield are changing the character of the fight. It is very possible that some of the brigades will be directly controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda (yeah, the last one is a stretch, but who can tell for sure). In any case, the war it is a changin.

Probably true, though it's way too early to tell how Egypt, Tunisia, or Libya will turn out. The question is whether these events could at any point have been redirected by an outside power without excessive cost and risk. The choice seems to have been to let things play out with a little verbal and moral support for the rebellion (sanctions, statements, etc) and try to contain the ill effects, rather than to intervene and try to redirect the revolution. Given the costs, risks, and slim probability of success offered by intervention, that seems to me a reasonable choice. Of course that choice has risks, all choices have risks in these situations.

So again, the risk here is not so much that there will be a civil war with the associated humanitarian ramifications, human rights violations, and war crimes. I am a cynic. What happens in Syria stays in Syria (at least until after the war is over). The risk is that what happens if Syria triggers events beyond its borders.

Certainly that risk was there from he start, and would be there is just about any "fall of Assad" scenario. The question is what could be or could have been done to alleviate that risk. I haven't seen many viable suggestions beyond an effort at containment. Intervention by any party at any point could just as easily have exacerbated the risk of spillover.

So, to answer this question I offer two senarios:

All of those are possible, though by no means certain. There is some reasonable chance that any of these can be averted by placing pressure on the outside parties involved, who of course would face considerable risk from war as well. Of course that might fail. The question is whether any attempt to reduce risk by forcing an end to the Syrian conflict has any better prospect of success.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about nation-building. I am talking about what, if any, actions could be taken to enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution rather than let things simmer until they spin out of control. My concern is not modernization or expanding democracy but in keeping a lid on the powder keg. Yes, I am being a little dramatic, but that seems to be the best way for me to get my point across.

That's the crux of it, is it not?

'll give a simple answer: none. Forget it, it's not going to happen. If somebody has a realistic and viable plan that offers a chance to "enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution", please present it and I'll gladly reconsider that opinion, but I don't think anyone does, nor do I think there was ever a point at which it would have been a viable solution. Again, if anyone has a practical, viable suggestion for how this could have been done I'm all ears, but I don't expect to hear much.

There are a few reasons for that.

First, this thing has "quagmire" written all over it in glowing bold-face letters, and nobody wants to walk into one of those. It would be very expensive and very risky, the probability of success is extremely low and the probability of sinking into an extended mess extremely high.

Second, any attempt to "enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution" is and always has been likely to kick off the very regional escalation it's supposed to prevent. Any effort to do that will be perceived (with good reason) by everyone else in the neighborhood as an effort to advance the interests of the intervening party. That's free license for everyone else to jump in to advance their own interests, especially for those whose interests are different from those of the intervening party. That could be averted if the intervening party had no direct economic or strategic interests at stake, but no nation on earth would take on a mess like that with no interests at stake.

An outside attempt to "enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution" would not prevent an escalation, it would be an escalation, and would probably kick off more escalation.

Letting things play out and trying to contain the results is not a perfect option, and there are certainly risks. The question is whether there is or at any point was a better option. If anyone thinks there was, I hope they'll tell us about it, in enough detail to allow some determination of whether it would or would not have actually been a better option.

I don't like the option of American military intervention.

Neither do I. I don't think anyone does.

I actually DO prefer the Chinese as they provide the least tainted option.

Why would the Chinese want to get involved? What compelling economic or strategic interest is at stake for them? Given the geographic and logistic realities, it would be an enormously complicated and expensive venture for them. What would be the payoff? The Chinese are not in the habit of bleeding themselves dry in pointless military adventures in distant places, what reason would they have to start now, and in a place with so little to offer? Oil isn't a factor; Syrian exports are insignificant.

The Russians are my second favorite since they already have a base of operations.

The Russians have access and motive, so there's at least a possibility that they might step in (realistically the probability of Chinese intervention approaches zero). Hardly a desirable turn of events, though. The Russians have zero credibility as a neutral mediator. If they intervene it will not be to "enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution", it will be to keep Assad in power. That of course would be a green light for those supporting the rebels to escalate their own involvement. A Russian intervention would be a bonus for AQ, they'd be all too eager to recreate the glory days of the Afghan mujahedin, and while it would be nice to have their attention elsewhere for a while, we all recall that using Islamists against a rival didn't work out so well last time around.

I think Russian military intervention would be more likely to accelerate and escalate regional spillover than to prevent it. That's even assuming the Russians would go in. I have some doubts on that: they want the port at Tartus, but do they want it badly enough to risk another Afghanistan? Certainly they'll ship arms to Assad, which may or may not make much difference: I don't get the impression that lack of weapons is a constraint for the Assad side. They'll vote in his favor in the UN, slip him money, do what they can from a distance.... but putting boots on the ground? Could happen, but I suspect they'll be very reluctant.

One possibility I've heard floated is that the Allawites could withdraw to the eastern areas where they are a majority, with their armed forces and WMD, and establish a breakaway state, of course with Russian support (Tartus is in that Allawite-dominated zone). That of course would likely kick off a round of ethnic cleansing, among other things. Like all hypothetical scenarios, it's a bit remote; we shall see.

I don't think Russian military intervention is likely, and I certainly don't think it desirable: more likely to make matters worse than to make them better, IMO. Of course there might arguably be some geostrategic advantage to the US in having the Russians up to their necks in scheisse, but I suspect that this would be more a vicarious pleasure in seeing someone other than us in that position for a change than an actual advantage.

In any event the preferred strategy from the US and Europe seems to be to let things play out and try to contain the violence as much as possible. Not an ideal strategy perhaps, and certainly with risks... but has anyone got a better idea?

Ken White

08-01-2012, 11:44 PM

You can say what you like about South Africa - I don't have an immature sensitivity over criticism of that nature which would lead to a knee jerk reaction.Reactions aren't the problem, making ignorant statements with little basis other than a few random biases is the problem -- or would be to me. YMOV. ;)
And you get it right all the time?Nope. Only about 85-90% of the time do I get it right. That's ahead of the International Mean by 14.7 to 19.7 percentage points. Fear not, you may catch up when you get older... :D

carl

08-02-2012, 02:19 AM

The Alpine Fortress would seem a good bet if a government were trying to survive a zombie apocalypse. But it would seem a less good bet if a government were trying to outlast an opponent with friends with satellite intelligence they might be willing to pass along.

I am not so sure. The people trying to take such a position might have very precise intel but they would still have to take the position. The Alawites would be very highly motivated to hold, if they were smart they would take copious amounts of heavy weapons with them plus as much money as they could lay hands on and they would have access to the sea. I think that makes for something that could be quite formidable. If this happened, you might end up with two countries where there was once one. That has happened pretty frequently in history.

carl

08-02-2012, 02:25 AM

I haven't been reading all that much about this conflict because there is nothing much we can do about it but watch. But I am curious about something. I knew Col. Q was doomed in Libya when I saw the type of people many who were opposing him were, doctors, small business men, grad students coming back from abroad, middle aged family men-guys who had a lot to live for and chose to risk it. Very high quality guys. Col Q's forces couldn't stand against that.

Does anybody know offhand if the same type of people are opposing Assad? Or is this thing more along sectarian lines? I think the type of people composing the rebel forces is important to evaluating them and I wonder about it.

Dayuhan

08-02-2012, 04:02 AM

Does anybody know offhand if the same type of people are opposing Assad? Or is this thing more along sectarian lines? I think the type of people composing the rebel forces is important to evaluating them and I wonder about it.

The Syrian rebels don't have the media coverage that the Libyan rebels did, mainly because there isn't a Benghazi-style safe zone where international media can circulate. That's also one reason, I suspect, for the general disinterest in intervention among westerners: the CNN effect was very real in Libya.

Whether or not media coverage is an accurate representation of the composition of a rebel force is of course always open to doubt. Reporters are more likely top interview articulate professionals with lofty goals than unemployed youths who just want to stick it to The Man.

ganulv

08-02-2012, 04:11 AM

Reporters are more likely top interview articulate professionals with lofty goals than unemployed youths who just want to stick it to The Man.

Or just want to have something, anything, to do. I say this only half-jokingly. If you are the leader of a country where the majority of young men are unemployed and have no reason to believe that is ever going to change you need to seriously reassess your policy priorities!

Surferbeetle

08-02-2012, 06:52 AM

UNHCR, Syria Regional Refugee Response, Demographic Data of Registered Population, http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Registered Total Population *

123,762 Individuals
26,867 Households**

* Sources are detailed in each country page
** Household data may be unavailable for some locations

Turkey meets Kurds over Syria chaos, By David O’Byrne in Istanbul, August 1, 2012 7:21 pm, Financial Times, www.ft.com

Whether Turkey will go so far as to take military action to prevent the emergence of a Kurdish entity in Syria is unclear, with media reports claiming that Iran has issued harsh warning to Turkey not to take military action.

The Brussels based Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) claimed in a statement on Wednesday that PKK fighters were in control of a large area in the vicinity of Semdinli and had shot down two military helicopters and killed 49 Turkish troops.

Syria Faces Economic Endgame Amid Chaos As Sanctions Bite, By Donna Abu-Nasr - Jul 29, 2012 3:00 PM MT, Bloomberg Markets Magazine, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-29/syria-faces-economic-endgame-amid-chaos-as-sanctions-bite.html

“Had the Damascus Spring been allowed to flourish, a soft landing could’ve been reached both for the nation and the regime 10 years down the road,” says Sami Moubayyed, a Syrian historian.

Divisions between the majority Sunni Muslims and Assad’s Alawite leadership have spilled across the country’s borders, with clashes between different religious groups in Lebanon during the past few months. The makeup of religious groups in Syria is similar to that in Iraq and Lebanon, says Edward Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria who’s the founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. He says the violence could spread through the region.

As of July 29, the Syrian pound had lost more than a third of its value against the dollar since March 2011, slashing the purchasing power of Syrians on fixed incomes. Syria’s inflation rate was about 33 percent in May, the most recent data available from the Central Bureau of Statistics. Deposits fell by an average of 35 percent in 2011 at Bank Audi Syria SA, Bank of Syria and Overseas SA and Banque Bemo Saudi Fransi SA, according to April filings with the securities exchange. Lending plunged 22 percent.

The EU’s decision to stop importing Syrian crude oil had cost the country $3 billion in export revenue, Sufian Alao, who was oil minister at the time, told the official Syrian Arab News Agency on April 30. Syria exported 150,000 barrels of the 380,000 barrels a day it produced before the sanctions were imposed last September. Its other main exports are textiles, kitchenware and canned food.

davidbfpo

08-02-2012, 12:08 PM

Carl asked a few posts back:
I knew Col. Q was doomed in Libya when I saw the type of people many who were opposing him were, doctors, small business men, grad students coming back from abroad, middle aged family men-guys who had a lot to live for and chose to risk it. Very high quality guys.

Does anybody know offhand if the same type of people are opposing Assad?

I have yet to see any reports of the Syrian diaspora returning home. I guess the diaspora is similar in skills to that of Libyans, a good number of them living in the UK for many years. Where does the Syrian diaspora live? I expect very small numbers in the UK, even fewer in the USA, more in France and the bulk are scattered in the oil-rich sheikh fiefdoms - that may not allow return.

There is a partial answer in this BBC report, from Damascus:
Saab was in his mid-40s, a father of three children and an inspirational member of the peaceful protest movement in the suburbs of Damascus, they said. According to fellow activists, some of his family members had been victims of repression during the rule of President Bashar al-Assad's late father, Hafez, and had been forced to live abroad. After several years working as a construction worker in the Gulf to save money, Saab had returned to Syria 10 years ago, intent on building a comfortable life for his family.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19046521

Reflecting for a moment back to the start of the protests, what has happened to Deraa, where the protests started?

Secondly all Syrians knew the real nature of the regime and had few outlets to escape if they wanted to. I expect they had access to a variety of media sources and simply thought it was time for a change - eighteen months ago. Very quickly the brutality of the regime was clear, remember the child protester who was tortured, IIRC in Deraa and his body returned to his family.

JMA

08-02-2012, 06:07 PM

Reactions aren't the problem, making ignorant statements with little basis other than a few random biases is the problem -- or would be to me. YMOV. ;)Nope. Only about 85-90% of the time do I get it right. That's ahead of the International Mean by 14.7 to 19.7 percentage points. Fear not, you may catch up when you get older... :D

Ken you may get it right somewhere around that level - not that I had noticed - which is lot higher than the US government of the day does. That's the point... shrugging off national failure doesn't change the facts as they play out on the ground.

TheCurmudgeon

08-02-2012, 07:47 PM

An outside attempt to "enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution" would not prevent an escalation, it would be an escalation, and would probably kick off more escalation.

Peace in our time eh' Neville?

There are risks in any course of action. Right now the conflict IS escalating. Foreign fighters are entering the country with political and religious agendas that are only marginally part of the original fight.

For me it is a matter of whether recent events tied with long festering hatreds create a situation where the conflict extends beyond the borders. The only question now is, "Do the perception of recent victories in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt along with the pent up rage that exist outside Syria remain contained or do outside agents use them to draw other regional players into the conflict for their own political gain?" If they do manage to bring others in, can those outside agents contain the fight or will the passion of the people take on a life of its own, both inside and outside Syria.

A bit of a worse case scenario, but I like to think positively.

TheCurmudgeon

08-02-2012, 10:08 PM

Tragically, the spiral of violence in Syria is continuing,” Mr. Ban said in the statement. “The hand extended to turn away from violence in favor of dialogue and diplomacy — as spelled out in the six-point plan — has not been taken, even though it still remains the best hope for the people of Syria.”

Word of Mr. Annan’s resignation came as the United Nations General Assembly was preparing to vote on a resolution drafted by Saudi Arabia that demands that the Syrian government comply with his plan.

But the General Assembly resolution, which is scheduled for a vote on Friday, does not have the enforcement power of a Security Council measure, and has been viewed as largely a symbolic effort to embarrass Syria and its backers.

Major powers expressed regret over Mr. Annan’s resignation and acknowledged the difficulties of his assignment, but in doing so they appeared to commit the same kind of blame-laying he cited as a reason for quitting.

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said Mr. Annan’s resignation “highlights the failure in the United Nations Security Council of Russia and China to support meaningful resolutions against Assad that would hold Assad accountable for his failure to abide by the Annan plan.”

Russian news agencies quoted President Vladimir V. Putin as saying, “Kofi Annan is a very respectable person, a brilliant diplomat and a very decent man, so it’s really a shame.” At the same time, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a message posted on its Twitter account that it would vote against the General Assembly resolution on Syria, calling it unfairly biased against the Syrian government.

There was no immediate reaction to Mr. Annan’s departure from Mr. Assad or the array of Syrian opposition groups, some of which have always expressed doubts about Mr. Annan’s efforts.

But Louay Hussein, a Syrian writer and longtime opposition activist, said in an e-mail: “The responsibility of the failure of Mr. Annan in his mission is the responsibility of the international community, and not the Syrian parties to the conflict. It will have very negative consequences on the armed conflict in the country.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/world/middleeast/annan-resigns-as-syria-peace-envoy.html?pagewanted=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Sadly, no one really wants this to work. They all have other agendas.

“The bloodshed continues, most of all because of the Syrian government’s intransigence, and continuing refusal to implement the six-point plan, and also because of the escalating military campaign of the opposition — all of which is compounded by the disunity of the international community,” Annan said.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/kofi-annan-says-he-is-quitting-as-special-envoy-to-syria-effective-aug-31/2012/08/02/gJQAYvorRX_story.html

Dayuhan

08-03-2012, 12:55 AM

Peace in our time eh' Neville?

Not likely in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean we need to be in the middle of whatever non-peace is going on.

If we speak of "appeasement", who would you say is being appeased?

There are risks in any course of action. Right now the conflict IS escalating. Foreign fighters are entering the country with political and religious agendas that are only marginally part of the original fight.

Of course they are. They would do so even if some foreign power was there trying to "enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution". They would likely move in more aggressively and with greater outside support if they could claim to be fighting to expel the infidel from the land of the faithful. I don't see how foreign intervention would change or alleviate the problem of foreign fighters moving in.

The only question now is, "Do the perception of recent victories in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt along with the pent up rage that exist outside Syria remain contained or do outside agents use them to draw other regional players into the conflict for their own political gain?" If they do manage to bring others in, can those outside agents contain the fight or will the passion of the people take on a life of its own, both inside and outside Syria.

What "perception of recent victories in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt" would that be? I don't think it would be accurate to claim those as Islamist victories, though certainly Islamists will try to exploit them, as will non-Islamists. I also wouldn't assume that Islamists moving into Syria to try to exploit that situation must automatically mean that Islamists will control Syria after Assad falls. Certainly they will try, that doesn't mean they'll succeed.

The passion of the people will of course take on a life of its own. It already has. All I can see outside intervention doing is providing a convenient target and rallying point for the most violent incarnation of those passions.

All very well to suggest that this is appeasement... but again, who's being appeased? And more to the point, what would you want to see done about it? Even more to the point, who would do it? We all seem to agree that US intervention would be a bad idea. The Chinese won't touch it... what payoff could there possibly be for them that would justify the expense, effort, and risk? Maybe Russia, slim outside chance, but wouldn't that just make things worse?

Without a viable intervening party and a realistically viable plan for intervention, talk of intervention is moot from that start. And yes, I'm aware that intervention doesn't have to be military, but realistically any effort to "enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution" is going to involve a substantial military commitment.

Sadly, no one really wants this to work. They all have other agendas.

I think plenty of people want to see it work, but wanting something to work and having the will or capacity to make it work are two different things. I'm not sure any outside party ever had the will, or realistically the capacity, to settle this without a major fight. The ability of outside parties to stop people from fighting seems much overrated to me: the whole world can express dismay and demand peace, but the fight will go on unless somebody steps into the snake pit to try and stop it. Usually it goes on even after someone steps in, and whoever steps in is likely to get bit.

Yes, it's ugly. What do you think should be or should have been done about it, and by whom?

TheCurmudgeon

08-03-2012, 02:27 AM

The ability of outside parties to stop people from fighting seems much overrated to me...

Yes, it's ugly. What do you think should be or should have been done about it, and by whom?

They could quit supplying each side with arms. Don't see anyone rushing to do that. In fact, I see the opposite.

Everyone has an agenda ...

Dayuhan

08-03-2012, 05:40 AM

They could quit supplying each side with arms. Don't see anyone rushing to do that. In fact, I see the opposite.

Everyone has an agenda ...

Of course everyone involved has an agenda, or they wouldn't be involved. Not everyone's supplying arms, and even if they weren't, would that end the fighting? I suppose it might, if it led to Assad's forces slaughtering the opposition, but is that a desirable outcome?

Again hypothetical, since those who are supplying arms will do it no matter what we think or say.

Saw this WP editorial...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-time-for-leadership-on-syria/2012/07/27/gJQA2v8mEX_story.html

Starts out with a stirring call for leadership, but when it comes down to specific prescriptions, this is all that emerges:

No one is arguing for a Libyan-style intervention into Syria at this point. But the United States and its NATO allies could begin contingency planning for a no-fly zone, now that Mr. Assad is deploying aircraft against the opposition. Instead of providing only non-lethal support, such as medical supplies and communications gear, America could help supply weapons to the outgunned opposition fighters. It could work with Turkey and other allies to set up havens for them.

All of these moves contain risks. But those must be weighed against the danger of inaction — a long civil war that could spill across Syria’s borders.

I assume that contingency plans for a no-fly zone are already in place; that option would have been considered early and military planners would of course want to have a plan ready if needed. Isn't it true, though, that a no-fly zone would require a major attack to suppress air defenses? That essentially means American intervention... who else would do it? Given the general public attitude toward the prospect of another war, and given the upcoming election, I can't see that happening.

Question for those more technically inclined: would it be possible to enforce a limited no-fly zone over, say, Aleppo and surroundings purely using SAM assets based in Turkey and AWACS cover in Turkish airspace? Of course that would be internationalizing the conflict...

For that matter, wouldn't supplying weapons and setting up and protecting safe havens also be internationalizing the conflict? Seems like the dangers of action are very similar to the dangers of inaction, except that the dangers of inaction happen without us or some other poor dumb foreigners in the middle of it...

JMA

08-03-2012, 07:19 AM

They could quit supplying each side with arms. Don't see anyone rushing to do that. In fact, I see the opposite.

Everyone has an agenda ...

Well of course once the weapons started to flow the genie was effectively out of the bottle.

JMA

08-03-2012, 07:32 AM

Of course everyone involved has an agenda, or they wouldn't be involved. Not everyone's supplying arms, and even if they weren't, would that end the fighting? I suppose it might, if it led to Assad's forces slaughtering the opposition, but is that a desirable outcome?

You are just burning bandwidth.

If the "rebels" had not received weapons the armed insurrection would not have gotten off the ground. One would have thought this simple lesson would have been learned from Libya.

I assume that contingency plans for a no-fly zone are already in place; ...

Stop, stop, stop ... For a one time PeaceCorps agricultural volunteer you are way out of your depth on this ...

Dayuhan

08-03-2012, 07:53 AM

If the "rebels" had not received weapons the armed insurrection would not have gotten off the ground. One would have thought this simple lesson would have been learned from Libya.

So you're saying there was no armed insurrection until the Saudis and Qataris started supplying weapons? I'm not sure that matches up with the actual chronology. In any event, again, it's a moot point, since the Saudis. Qataris, and others were going to supply weapons no matter what anyone in the US or the West wanted. It's easy to say that no weapons should have been supplied and the Syrian dissidents should simply have been abandoned to the tender mercies of Assad and his military, but since there was never any way to prevent weapons from flowing in, it's too hypothetical an idea to be of much interest.

Stop, stop, stop ... For a one time PeaceCorps agricultural volunteer you are way out of your depth on this ...

Are you saying that US military planners don't bother coming up with contingency plans for anything they think politicians might conceivably ask them to do? Others here have told me that's routine practice in the US, but I guess they don't know what they're talking about, and that if the politicians asked for a no-fly zone the military would have to start planning from scratch on receipt of the request.

PS: On a quick look, it seems the Free Syrian Army began armed attacks in late 2011, long before there was any talk of arms supplied from outside. The reporting at that time indicated that they were using weapons that they'd brought with them when they defected. There are also references to black market arms purchases. I'm not sure the contention that "If the "rebels" had not received weapons the armed insurrection would not have gotten off the ground" is consistent with the actual train of events on the ground. As in Libya, it looks more like the armed rebellion "got of the ground" with weapons provided by military defectors, and received aid once it had demonstrated the capacity to mount serious resistance.

JMA

08-03-2012, 10:16 AM

So you're saying there was no armed insurrection until the Saudis and Qataris started supplying weapons? I'm not sure that matches up with the actual chronology. In any event, again, it's a moot point, since the Saudis. Qataris, and others were going to supply weapons no matter what anyone in the US or the West wanted. It's easy to say that no weapons should have been supplied and the Syrian dissidents should simply have been abandoned to the tender mercies of Assad and his military, but since there was never any way to prevent weapons from flowing in, it's too hypothetical an idea to be of much interest.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Are you saying that US military planners don't bother coming up with contingency plans for anything they think politicians might conceivably ask them to do?

No...

... but when an ex Peace Corps agricultural volunteer starts pontificating about stuff beyond his ken I am reminded of this piece from the 1929 crash:

One speculator decided to get his money out of the stock market before the crash in 1929 when he heard the elevator operator talking about his investments.

Access through Google to the web and online newspapers does not you into an expert on these matters on 20 minutes.

Others here have told me that's routine practice in the US, but I guess they don't know what they're talking about, and that if the politicians asked for a no-fly zone the military would have to start planning from scratch on receipt of the request.

You have now ventured into the realm intellectual dishonesty through that mischievous extrapolation.

PS: On a quick look, it seems the Free Syrian Army began armed attacks in late 2011, long before there was any talk of arms supplied from outside. The reporting at that time indicated that they were using weapons that they'd brought with them when they defected. There are also references to black market arms purchases. I'm not sure the contention that "If the "rebels" had not received weapons the armed insurrection would not have gotten off the ground" is consistent with the actual train of events on the ground. As in Libya, it looks more like the armed rebellion "got of the ground" with weapons provided by military defectors, and received aid once it had demonstrated the capacity to mount serious resistance.

You are just guessing... you have no idea what you are talking about.

Here is something for you to chew on:

Obama authorized covert support for Syrian rebels, sources say (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/syria-rebels-us-aid/index.html)

davidbfpo

08-03-2012, 10:24 AM

Dayuhan asked:
Question for those more technically inclined: would it be possible to enforce a limited no-fly zone over, say, Aleppo and surroundings purely using SAM assets based in Turkey and AWACS cover in Turkish airspace? Of course that would be internationalizing the conflict...

I am not technically minded, so hopefully Entropy will be along shortly to add his expertise - and anyone else of course.

IIRC previous posts and other analysts have stated that without suppressing enemy aid defences (SEAD) the 'no-fly zone' option was unwise, even if the Syrian system was rather old-style, Soviet-built it still could kill. Removing SEAD is a technical matter:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses

Earlier in this crisis I was puzzled by the absence of an overt move of NATO AWACS to the region, based either in Turkey or the UK base on Cyprus, followed by a build-up of a capability to act. This would have been a diplomatic signal of concern and the possibility of being built-up to actual capability. Perhaps an Anglo-French-US carrier exercise too.

IMO the 'no-fly zone' could not be as suggested Aleppo and nearby, a quick look at the map suggests no easy boundaries; so we are left with a national 'no-fly' zone. Recalling the experience for many years with the two 'no-fly zones' in Iraq, they used a Parallel as the boundary, with regular overflights and occasional strikes on radar sites etc:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

Using Cyprus as a base, for NATO / US use, would pose a few issues, especially if Cyprus (not a NATO member, but in the EU) and or Turkey was none too keen. Nor should we overlook UK reluctance to do much more than diplomacy and "grandstanding".

A national 'no-fly zone' would require IMO access and support from Syria's neighbours. Lebanon made it quite clear even UN observers use of their airfield(s) was no-go; Iraq has its own reasons not to help and for Jordan, the consummate balancer, please don't ask.

Given the regional concerns over a possible Israeli / US strike on Iran, would any external SEAD campaign be a good thing, even AWACS activity could be challenged.

Quite quickly what appears to be an option gets more difficult and this may explain why it never gained traction.

JMA

08-03-2012, 10:35 AM

Dayuhan asked:

I am not technically minded, so hopefully Entropy will be along shortly to add his expertise - and anyone else of course.

IIRC previous posts and other analysts have stated that without suppressing enemy aid defences (SEAD) the 'no-fly zone' option was unwise, even if the Syrian system was rather old-style, Soviet-built it still could kill. Removing SEAD is a technical matter:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses

Earlier in this crisis I was puzzled by the absence of an overt move of NATO AWACS to the region, based either in Turkey or the UK base on Cyprus, followed by a build-up of a capability to act. This would have been a diplomatic signal of concern and the possibility of being built-up to actual capability. Perhaps an Anglo-French-US carrier exercise too.

IMO the 'no-fly zone' could not be as suggested Aleppo and nearby, a quick look at the map suggests no easy boundaries; so we are left with a national 'no-fly' zone. Recalling the experience for many years with the two 'no-fly zones' in Iraq, they used a Parallel as the boundary, with regular overflights and occasional strikes on radar sites etc:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

Using Cyprus as a base, for NATO / US use, would pose a few issues, especially if Cyprus (not a NATO member, but in the EU) and or Turkey was none too keen. Nor should we overlook UK reluctance to do much more than diplomacy and "grandstanding".

A national 'no-fly zone' would require IMO access and support from Syria's neighbours. Lebanon made it quite clear even UN observers use of their airfield(s) was no-go; Iraq has its own reasons not to help and for Jordan, the consummate balancer, please don't ask.

Given the regional concerns over a possible Israeli / US strike on Iran, would any external SEAD campaign be a good thing, even AWACS activity could be challenged.

Quite quickly what appears to be an option gets more difficult and this may explain why it never gained traction.

David, in the context of the article and the predicted introduction of SAM man-packs there may be no need for a 'no-fly-zone'

Syrian Leader’s Arms Under Strain as Conflict Continues (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/world/middleeast/as-conflict-continues-in-syria-assads-arms-face-strain.html?pagewanted=all)

Dayuhan

08-03-2012, 11:18 AM

Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't. I read them from your post. What you wrote was this:

f the "rebels" had not received weapons the armed insurrection would not have gotten off the ground.

If the armed insurrection got off the ground before the external arms supply began, then that contention is clearly pretty questionable. It's also called into question by this quote from the article you cite:

Defections of government troops and seizures of armaments are also a growing problem. Rebels in Aleppo claim to have control of a total of 14 T-72 and T-55 tanks and many indirect-fire weapons, including artillery pieces as well as mortars.

“The tanks are driven by our members, and their specialty is driving tanks, that’s what they did before they defected,” said Bashir al-Haji, a Free Syrian Army commander in Aleppo.

and also:

the American government official said that there were indications that rebels had apparently captured more SA-7 missile tubes and batteries from Syrian government stocks.

Somehow I don't think the Saudis and Qataris are supplying tanks, and while we don't know how many of the weapons the rebels are using came from abroad and how many were internally sourced, there are certainly indications that the rebels have been able to source enough weapons internally to mount a credible armed insurrection.

but when an ex Peace Corps agricultural volunteer starts pontificating about stuff beyond his ken...

I don't see any connection between what any of us was doing 30+ years ago and what they know today. There are people on this site who were in high school 30 years ago. There are people here who weren't born 30 years ago. Are their comments necessarily invalid? Or only when you don't agree with them?

Access through Google to the web and online newspapers does not you into an expert on these matters on 20 minutes.

I'm not an expert. neither are you. You don't have to be an expert to determine that the FSA had gotten off the ground with armed insurrection well before any reports or even discussion of external arms supplies.

You are just guessing... you have no idea what you are talking about.

I doubt that you know more, or that anyone here is working from any source beyond public reporting.

Here is something for you to chew on:

Obama authorized covert support for Syrian rebels, sources say (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/syria-rebels-us-aid/index.html)

So what? Nothing there we didn't already know. For example

Exactly what type of support the finding authorizes is also unclear. The Obama administration has ruled out arming the rebels for now, providing only nonlethal assistance, such as communications equipment...

The Obama administration has resisted arming the opposition

I gather that you disapprove of what has been done, but you still haven't provided a clue about what you think should have been done instead. I'm beginning to think you don't know, and that accusations of incompetence and failure are simply a knee-jerk reaction with no substance at all.

Dayuhan

08-03-2012, 11:24 AM

Dayuhan asked:

I am not technically minded, so hopefully Entropy will be along shortly to add his expertise - and anyone else of course.

IIRC previous posts and other analysts have stated that without suppressing enemy aid defences (SEAD) the 'no-fly zone' option was unwise, even if the Syrian system was rather old-style, Soviet-built it still could kill. Removing SEAD is a technical matter:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses

Earlier in this crisis I was puzzled by the absence of an overt move of NATO AWACS to the region, based either in Turkey or the UK base on Cyprus, followed by a build-up of a capability to act. This would have been a diplomatic signal of concern and the possibility of being built-up to actual capability. Perhaps an Anglo-French-US carrier exercise too.

IMO the 'no-fly zone' could not be as suggested Aleppo and nearby, a quick look at the map suggests no easy boundaries; so we are left with a national 'no-fly' zone. Recalling the experience for many years with the two 'no-fly zones' in Iraq, they used a Parallel as the boundary, with regular overflights and occasional strikes on radar sites etc:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

Using Cyprus as a base, for NATO / US use, would pose a few issues, especially if Cyprus (not a NATO member, but in the EU) and or Turkey was none too keen. Nor should we overlook UK reluctance to do much more than diplomacy and "grandstanding".

A national 'no-fly zone' would require IMO access and support from Syria's neighbours. Lebanon made it quite clear even UN observers use of their airfield(s) was no-go; Iraq has its own reasons not to help and for Jordan, the consummate balancer, please don't ask.

Given the regional concerns over a possible Israeli / US strike on Iran, would any external SEAD campaign be a good thing, even AWACS activity could be challenged.

All of that makes sense, though I'd still be interested in hearing what those who know the mechanics of these things have to say.

Quite quickly what appears to be an option gets more difficult and this may explain why it never gained traction.

That makes a great deal of sense as well, and seems an excellent reason to avoid anything beyond the most minimal involvement. It's easy to propose "solutions", but few stand up to examination.

TheCurmudgeon

08-03-2012, 11:32 AM

TheCurmudgeon

08-03-2012, 12:13 PM

Given the regional concerns over a possible Israeli / US strike on Iran, would any external SEAD campaign be a good thing, even AWACS activity could be challenged.

Quite quickly what appears to be an option gets more difficult and this may explain why it never gained traction.

There was never any justification for a no-fly zone. Historically these were used to stop what was perceived as the misuse of military aircraft to kill non-combatants. In Syria the aircraft are being used to fight rebels.

davidbfpo

08-03-2012, 12:32 PM

Curmudgeon stated just:
There was never any justification for a no-fly zone. Historically these were used to stop what was perceived as the misuse of military aircraft to kill non-combatants. In Syria the aircraft are being used to fight rebels.

To my limited knowledge there are three modern examples of a 'no-fly zone', most recently Libya (with other coercive options at play), further back in time Iraq (for a short time ground elements in the north) and former Yugoslavia (alongside UN peacekeeping and peace enforcement).

Not to overlook the serious mistake in Iraq, where IIRC helicopters were excluded, or was that the armistice agreement?

In Syria today I have m' doubts that both aircraft and helicopters can readily distinguish between non-combatants and rebels. Aircraft bombing etc in an urban area is unlikely to be accurate in an urban setting; although to be fair we have seen very little reporting of this happening.

Dayuhan

08-03-2012, 12:33 PM

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't decry intervention and at the same time bemoan the slaughter that results from failing to intervene.

You can bemoan the slaughter and still accept that intervention probably wouldn't have reduced the slaughter, that there were no attractive options for intervention, and that no potential intervening party was or is willing to accept the cost and risk of trying to impose a political solution... even assuming that it is or would have been possible to impose a political solution.

I remain unconvinced that the violence can be blamed exclusively on outside parties who provided arms, since it appears that substantial quantities of what FSA is using are internally sourced. Even with the violence increasing it's not clear whether that's caused by an influx of arms from outside or by increased numbers of soldiers defecting with their weapons. The provision of arms by the Saudis and Qataris (likely others as well) is probably a factor, but is there any evidence to indicate that it's a decisive factor?

It still seems a bit of a moot point, as neither the US not any other party could have stopped the arms from getting in.

What, if anything, do you think should have been done that hasn't been done?

TheCurmudgeon

08-03-2012, 12:39 PM

In Syria today I have m' doubts that both aircraft and helicopters can readily distinguish between non-combatants and rebels. Aircraft bombing etc in an urban area is unlikely to be accurate in an urban setting; although to be fair we have seen very little reporting of this happening.

That is the problem. It goes back to Russia and China's opposition to intervention based on sovereignty. If you are willing to intervene based on human rights violations in a sovereign nation then China and Russia might be in trouble.

Same goes for Aircraft. If you argue that military aircraft cannot be used to strike military targets where there might be collateral civilian deaths, you would have to deny any country the use of them in all but a very limited instances. Not the kind of precedence anyone wants to set.

Dayuhan

08-03-2012, 12:56 PM

That is the problem. It goes back to Russia and China's opposition to intervention based on sovereignty. If you are willing to intervene based on human rights violations in a sovereign nation then China and Russia might be in trouble.

Russia and China opposed intervention in Iraq, but it still happened. The absence of intervention in Syria isn't because of Russian or Chinese opposition, it's because nobody with the capacity to intervene believes they have enough at stake to justify the cost and risk of intervention.

Surferbeetle

08-03-2012, 12:57 PM

Stop, stop, stop ... For a one time PeaceCorps agricultural volunteer you are way out of your depth on this ...

No more than a soldier...:wry:

Complexity, the new word for the old concept of multi-dimensional problems which require multi-dimensional solutions....and 'foreign viewpoints' :D

Don't forget the multidimensional components of analytical tools such as ASCOPE, DIME, PMESII (http://pmesii.dm2research.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page), SWOT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis), PESTLE (google search PESTLE diagram), etc.

davidbfpo

08-03-2012, 01:00 PM

Abu M has a worthwhile comment on the real "heavy hitter" today in Syria, artillery, not helicopters and aircraft - which make better film footage:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2012/08/guest-post-last-argument-tyrants.html

It makes grim reading, even for a civilian who has read a lot:
If they are well supplied and reasonably competent, a mere battalion of artillery (eighteen guns) can keep a small city under fire indefinitely.....artillery is easier and cheaper to employ to the same effect without the international condemnation that would follow any use of chemicals.

The regime's use of artillery, including mortars, has reportedly been widespread, although no-one to date has reported - big caveat there is very limited access to Syria - that Bashir has followed his father's bombardment of Homs (in 1982?). A city that was being bombarded in July 2012.

TheCurmudgeon

08-03-2012, 01:03 PM

Russia and China opposed intervention in Iraq, but it still happened. The absence of intervention in Syria isn't because of Russian or Chinese opposition, it's because nobody with the capacity to intervene believes they have enough at stake to justify the cost and risk of intervention.

Russia and China are the two hold-outs who block UN Security Council resolutions to act in Syria. We had and existing UN mandate for Iraq.

The 1991 Gulf War never fully ended, as there was no armistice formally ending the war. As a result relations between the United States, the United Nations, and Iraq remained strained, although Saddam Hussein issued formal statements renouncing his invasion of Kuwait and made reparations payments for Kuwait. The U.S. and the United Nations maintained a policy of “containment” towards Iraq, which involved economic sanctions, Iraqi no-fly zones enforced by the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and ongoing inspections of Iraqi weapons programs.[3] In 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 demanding that Iraq "comply with its disarmament obligations" and allow weapons inspectionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Iraq_War_Resolution

I believe that "unanimously" means they voted for it (or at least abstained).

Ken White

08-03-2012, 02:37 PM

Wyatt

08-03-2012, 04:25 PM

Russia and China may have a fear of HR being a precedent for intervention but its not something that puts them at risk imo. Sovereignty of the weak gets violated because its easy and they can do little to nothing to resist. the strength of your sovereignty seems only to rest on your power to resist.

If syria gave word governments pause, china and russia ought to sleep well. After all, we will probably just buy more Iphones and "like" the campaigns to end slave labor on Facebook because then we are doing something :D

JMA

08-03-2012, 04:43 PM

JMA

08-03-2012, 04:52 PM

Russia and China may have a fear of HR being a precedent for intervention but its not something that puts them at risk imo.

IMHO too.

Sovereignty of the weak gets violated because its easy and they can do little to nothing to resist. the strength of your sovereignty seems only to rest on your power to resist.

The validity of a claim to sovereignty must be challenged when no democratically elected government exists.

JMA

08-03-2012, 04:53 PM

JMA

08-03-2012, 05:02 PM

I believe that "unanimously" means they voted for it (or at least abstained).

From: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441)

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

TheCurmudgeon

08-03-2012, 06:14 PM

However,it has little to no applicability to what Dayuhan wrote. They did object and both provided aid to Saddam. Their current intransigence in public utterances and at the UN has little bearing on what other nations may do in Syria.

If there was a UN resolution that authorized force I would venture to say that the US along with NATO would provide assets including troops. The UN is not irrelevant and none of the major players are going to act without at least an arguable pretext of a legal justification. The US had that in Iraq. I don't see Iraq as setting any precedent that can be applied to Syria.

What independent actions other nations take without legal justification is, or should be, part of the consideration that goes into the debate at the UN.

To be honest, I am not sure what point Dayuhan is trying to make.

TheCurmudgeon

08-03-2012, 08:26 PM

If this is true I wonder how the Iranian's will respond?

Syrian rebels claimed they assassinated an Iranian diplomat in Damascus as war continues in the city of Aleppo. The Egyptian Al Arabiya website reported the assassination, which it said could not be confirmed. No details were available.Rebels Say Iranian Diplomat Assassinated in Syria (http://http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/158481#.UBwzZkRNCCQ)

Dayuhan

08-03-2012, 11:27 PM

Amazing... opinion stated as if fact.

Why would that amaze you, of all people? When you say things like:

the US/Europe don't have the balls to stare down Russia and China

to cite but one example among many, is that not opinion stated as fact?

I've said this before, but anything written here - by you, me, or anyone else - should be assumed to be the author's opinion, unless specifically stated otherwise and appropriately referenced. That's common sense, given the nature of the venue.

To be honest, I am not sure what point Dayuhan is trying to make.

The point is that the primary restraint on US or European action is lack of interest, not lack of UN approval or fear of anything the Russians or Chinese might say or do. If the US and/or Europe really wanted to intervene and saw intervention as in their interests, they'd make a way. They don't. The lack of UN movement actually seems to me to be rather congenial for the US: we can blame the Russians and Chinese for obstructionism and we have an excuse not to do something we have no interest in doing.

I don't agree with this:

If there was a UN resolution that authorized force I would venture to say that the US along with NATO would provide assets including troops.

at all. I don't think the US would send troops no matter what the UN said, because I don't think the US has any desire to send troops. There's no realistically viable plan for military intervention (unless someone has one and is keeping it secret), there's no evident perception of compelling national interest, a great deal of home-front political resistance. Given the mood of the American public at this point, leading the country into another war would be something close to political suicide, an unattractive prospect for any administration.

Ken White

08-04-2012, 03:12 AM

Don't buy that. Think 'precedent'.If you mean you do not buy it, fine. Your prerogative. If that's an attempt to tell me not to buy it, you're wasting your time; I've already bought it and put in the garage... ;)

You of all people should realize the US doesn't pay much heed to precedents -- you've certainly lambasted them enough over the issue. To no particular avail, I might add... :D

Ken White

08-04-2012, 03:28 AM

If there was a UN resolution that authorized force I would venture to say that the US along with NATO would provide assets including troops.Well, as they say, never say never -- but I'll be surprised if that's a correct assessment. In the unlikely event it does occur, I suspect the commitment would be miniscule...
The UN is not irrelevant and none of the major players are going to act without at least an arguable pretext of a legal justification. The US had that in Iraq. I don't see Iraq as setting any precedent that can be applied to Syria.No the UN is not irrelevant. Neither is its approval or disapproval going to cause the US to stop or go in something the US has determined to do. Rightfully so IMO. That means their relevance is relative... :wry:

Getting UN 'approval' is desirable but not mandatory. We used the UN to attempt to attract other Nations to the effort in Iraq and to give protective cover to those politicians who needed it for their domestic audience, no more.

Hopefully no one else will see Iraq as setting any precedent that can be applied to Syria...
What independent actions other nations take without legal justification is, or should be, part of the consideration that goes into the debate at the UN.Okay. That's fine -- as long as everyone realizes tha the US will play by that rule only so long as it suits and can be beneficial. ;)
To be honest, I am not sure what point Dayuhan is trying to make.Can't understand why, it was perfectly clear to me. Thus my post to which this sub thread applies.

In any event, he has expanded on his original comment. It should be quite clear now -- and I agree with his take on the issue. Syria would be side show and we have other interests at this time. Elections, for instance... :D

jmm99

08-04-2012, 04:44 AM

From TZ, Syrian general among 1,000 refugees fleeing to Turkey (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-288470-syrian-general-among-1000-refugees-fleeing-to-turkey.html) (3 Aug 2012):

About 1,000 Syrians, including a defecting brigadier-general, have fled to Turkey in the past 24 hours to escape intensifying violence in their country, a Turkish official said on Friday.

The latest group brought the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey to 45,500, up from 44,000 at the end of July, said the official, who asked not to be named. At least 25 military generals are among those who have taken refuge in Turkey.

Nothing unusual here. TZ has been running similar stories for months.

Of more interest is Abdullah Bozkurt's opinion piece, Turkey to shape Syrian army in post-Assad era (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-288525-turkey-to-shape-syrian-army-in-post-assad-era.html) (3 Aug 2012):

Considering that the only effective force keeping Syria together is the armed forces, Turks, Arabs and Americans have agreed on keeping the Syrian army pretty much intact to prevent major disarray in Syrian governance in the post-revolution era after the fall of embattled president Bashar al-Assad -- which looks more imminent.

The agreement will keep Turkey’s southern neighbor from plunging into a civil war along ethnic and sectarian lines while providing the necessary tools for the transitional government to restore stability and maintain public order during the elections and constitution-making process.
...
Turkey and its Arab/Western allies also plan to incorporate the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the largest armed opposition group operating throughout Syria, into the Syrian military after the departure of Assad. The FSA is composed of mostly defectors from the Syrian military and equips itself with arms it seized from Syrian military munitions depots and stockpiles. Some of the arms also come from black market dealings with the support of Turkey, the Gulf countries and the US. The FSA is led by Col. Riad al-Asaad, who is situated in Turkey and coordinates attacks on regime loyalists from there. I spoke on Sunday over a dinner to Ahmet Davutoğlu, who gave me the tally of total defectors so far: 26 generals, 47 colonels and 130 officers of various ranks have fled to Turkey. ... (and much more in article).

Ahmet Davutoğlu (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmet_Davuto%C4%9Flu)), currently making nice with the Iraqi Kurds and not so nice with the Iraqi government.

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan

08-04-2012, 05:16 AM

Of more interest is Abdullah Bozkurt's opinion piece

Interesting indeed.

Turks, Arabs and Americans have agreed on keeping the Syrian army pretty much intact to prevent major disarray in Syrian governance in the post-revolution era after the fall of embattled president Bashar al-Assad -- which looks more imminent...

Turkey and its Arab/Western allies also plan to incorporate the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the largest armed opposition group operating throughout Syria, into the Syrian military after the departure of Assad.

That sound as if the Turks, Arabs, and Americans expect to be calling the shots and making the decisions after (if) Assad leaves. I wonder what the basis for that (seeming) expectation is, and how accurate it will prove to be...

This:

The FSA is composed of mostly defectors from the Syrian military and equips itself with arms it seized from Syrian military munitions depots and stockpiles.

reinforces earlier suspicions that external supply of arms has not been the critical enabling factor for the FSA.

ganulv

08-04-2012, 05:37 AM

That sound as if the Turks, Arabs, and Americans expect to be calling the shots and making the decisions after (if) Assad leaves. I wonder what the basis for that (seeming) expectation is, and how accurate it will prove to be...

Whether or not those three parties are going to exert as much influence in Syria in the near future remains to be seen, as you say. But I would assume the idea is to avoid a repeat of Bremer’s De-Ba'athification program. Seems like apples and oranges to me, though, as that pogrom came before rather than after sectarian strife.

Dayuhan

08-04-2012, 06:38 AM

I would assume the idea is to avoid a repeat of Bremer’s De-Ba'athification program.

I would assume so, and also that the comments are meant to encourage further defections... "jump ship now and have a place waiting in the New Syrian Army".

Seems like apples and oranges to me, though, as that pogrom came before rather than after sectarian strife.

Also because Bremer was actually running Iraq at the time. I personally hope that the post-Assad order in Syria will be shaped by Syrians, not foreigners and certainly not Americans.

JMA

08-04-2012, 07:59 AM

If you mean you do not buy it, fine. Your prerogative. If that's an attempt to tell me not to buy it, you're wasting your time; I've already bought it and put in the garage... ;)

You of all people should realize the US doesn't pay much heed to precedents -- you've certainly lambasted them enough over the issue. To no particular avail, I might add... :D

That is exactly what I have been saying - thank you - about US foreign policy - it is bipolar - one wakes up every morning and wonders which US you will be seeing today.

08-04-2012, 01:13 PM

Buried in the Wikipedia link that Mike shared

Ahmet Davutoğlu (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmet_Davuto%C4%9Flu)), is what I believe is a significant consideration regarding the lack of direct intervention. I suspect that the Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, are concerned about neo-Ottomanism. Allowing Turkey to be the only (or principle) benefactor of the probable winner in Syria (which is not Assad btw) is a step toward the position found in the Wikipedia article and quoted below:

"I have said that Turkey as a nation-state is equal with any other nation-state of our region whether it is small in population or area. We don't have any hegemony on anyone. Rather what we are trying to do is to contribute to the establishment of a permanent peace in our region. If by order they mean is Pax Ottomana, Pax in the meaning of order, we are trying to establish a order, it is not wrong to say such thing".

A response to overt Turkish involvement in Syria could well be to stir up Kurds, for whom the Turks have such a great love :rolleyes:, along the eastern and southeastern borders of Turkiye Cumhuriyeti. Given that possibility, I think the Turks have chosen to wait and try to shape the post conflict government along the lines suggested by Mike's cited Bozkurt story (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-288525-turkey-to-shape-syrian-army-in-post-assad-era.html), with the US playing mediator to ensure that the Saudis' worries about neo-Ottomanism do not get out of hand.

BTW Iran might have to worry about someone stirring up some of their significant minority groups should it choose play an active role in Syria. The CIA Factbook points out about 18% of the country are Turkic (Azeris and Turkmens primarily) and another 10% are Kurds.

ganulv

08-04-2012, 03:32 PM

Also because Bremer was actually running Iraq at the time.

Nominally! Most surreal thing I have learned in a long time, partly because it is happening a couple of hour’s drive from my house: Bremer re-retired to a village in Vermont to become a landscape painter (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/02/the_watercolor_paintings_of_paul_bremer).

http://www.bremerenterprises.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Vermontcheeses.jpg (http://bremerenterprises.com/id75.html)

JMA

08-04-2012, 07:25 PM

Why would that amaze you, of all people? When you say things like:

to cite but one example among many, is that not opinion stated as fact?

I've said this before, but anything written here - by you, me, or anyone else - should be assumed to be the author's opinion, unless specifically stated otherwise and appropriately referenced. That's common sense, given the nature of the venue.

There is a point you seem to miss...being that when others make a statement of opinion you demand they substantiate their opinion... while when you make such statements if challenged you demand that you be proved wrong.

It is puerile high school level debating/discussion tactics. Don't you think it's time you grew out of it?

jmm99

08-04-2012, 07:58 PM

Hey Wm,

I definitely agree that the US should keep a low profile in what is primarily a Middle Eastern problem complex to be solved by Middle Easterners. The Turks have been pushing some public diplomatic buttons in accord with their expressed desires to develop Arab (Saudi) and Russian partnerships.

E.g., TZ (22 Jul 2012), Syria crisis unlikely to mar Turkish-Russian partnership (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-287256-syria-crisis-unlikely-to-mar--turkish-russian-partnership.html):

Russia and Turkey widely differ in their positions regarding finding a solution to the 16-month crisis in Syria, but there is little indication that the violence in Turkey’s southern neighbor will cast a shadow over the growing partnership between Turkey and Russia.
...
In his speech, Putin emphasized that the volume of bilateral trade between Russia and Turkey has grown by 20 percent, exceeding $34 billion. He stated that Russia will construct a nuclear plant in Akkuyu, and praised the efficiency of the High Level Cooperation Council set up between the two countries. Putin further noted that 3.5 million Russian tourists had traveled to Turkey in 2011, thanks to the quality of service experienced in the nation and the removal of visa requirements.

Both leaders agreed that they should continue working to achieve their goal of $100 billion in bilateral trade. Significant steps have been taken to improve mutual investments. To this end, during his visit to Moscow, Erdoğan’s met with the CEO of Sberbank, which has purchased Denizbank German Gref. Russia and Turkey will also cooperate on the Göktürk satellite project, due for completion by late 2013. A Third High Level Cooperation Council was also scheduled, which Russian President Putin and members of his cabinet will travel to Turkey on Oct. 15 to attend.

By comparison, Syria is a much smaller (and weaker) fish in Putin's frying pan. E.g., TZ (3 Aug 2012), Syria reaches oil deal with ally Russia (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-288576-syria-reaches-oil-deal-with-ally-russia.html):

Syria has reached an agreement with ally Russia to secure much-needed fuel as a delegation of ministers sent by President Bashar al-Assad asked Moscow to help alleviate the effects of sanctions on the war-torn country.
...
Under the deal, Syria will export its crude oil to Russia in exchange for refined oil products, which Damascus sorely needs to keep its economy and military running.

"Russia wants to help the Syrian people," Syrian Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Qadri Jamil told reporters in Moscow on Friday.

"We will deliver our oil and receive gasoline and fuel oil; it will be a barter," he said, adding that Syria is producing about 200,000 barrels per day.

However, Syria's Oil Minister Said Hneidi said production was less than 140,000 barrels per day.
...
Likewise, Syria is one of Russia's last Middle East footholds and hosts a Russian repair and maintenance facility on its coast. Damascus bought nearly $1 billion in arms from Moscow last year, or some 8 percent of all of Russia's arms exports.

The Kurdish problems (all four states, Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, have their own versions) are regularly addressed in TZ. Davutoğlu's visit to Iraqi Kurdistan and meeting with Barzani has generated some excitement. E.g., TZ, 1 Aug 2012, Davutoğlu, Barzani pledge cooperation in north Syria (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-288284-davutoglu-barzani-pledge-cooperation-in-north-syria.html):

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu raised the issue of the Syrian government's loss of control over territory with Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani on Wednesday, and both officials vowed to consider any attempt to exploit the power vacuum in Syria a “common threat.”

“Any attempt to exploit the power vacuum by any violent group or organization will be considered a common threat that should be jointly addressed. The new Syria should be free of any terrorist and extremist group or organization,” read a joint statement Barzani and Davutoğlu's offices released following talks in Arbil.

The Iraqi government went ballistic (diplomatically); and the Turks slapped back (diplomatically). From TZ, 3 Aug 2012:

Iraq summons Turkey envoy to protest over visit (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-288542-iraq-summons-turkey-envoy-to-protest-over-visit.html):

Iraq made a formal protest to Turkey's envoy in Baghdad on Friday after the Turkish foreign minister made a surprise visit to an oil-rich Iraqi city claimed by both the central government and the country's autonomous Kurdistan region.

The episode, the latest in a series of diplomatic spats and ###-for-tat summonings of envoys between the neighboring countries, is likely to worsen already strained relations.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu had travelled to Kirkuk on Thursday after visiting the regional president in Arbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan.

But Iraq's foreign ministry accused Turkey of violating its constitution with the visit, saying that Davutoğlu had neither asked for nor obtained permission to enter Kirkuk.

A junior minister at Iraq's foreign ministry had handed Turkey's charge d'affaires a protest letter on Friday, a strongly-worded statement from the foreign ministry said.
...
Relations between Iraq, close to Shi'ite Iran, and Sunni Muslim regional power Turkey, were tested after US troops pulled out of Iraq last year and the government immediately tried to arrest one of its Sunni vice presidents.

He fled first to Kurdistan and later to Ankara, where he was given refuge.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan then traded public insults. ...

Turkey hits back at Iraq in Kirkuk visit controversy (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-288541-turkey-hits-back-at-iraq-in-kirkuk-visit-controversy.html):

Turkey has lashed out at the Iraqi government for criticizing Ankara for interference in Iraqi affairs after Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu paid a surprise visit to an oil-rich Iraqi city claimed by both the central government and the country's autonomous Kurdistan region without consulting the Iraqi authorities first.

Turkish Foreign Ministry summoned Iraq’s Ambassador in Ankara to protest Baghdad’s subsequent statements after Davutoğlu’s visit to the contested city. Sources said the statements Iraq made after Turkish foreign minister’s Kirkuk visit are “unacceptable.”

Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioğlu told the Iraqi envoy that Turkey is taking every step in an open way and that it has no hidden agenda. Sinirlioğlu warned Iraqi authorities to be careful while making statements.

Turkey’s protest came after Iraq delivered a formal diplomatic note to Turkey's envoy in Baghdad on Friday. ...

The larger context is explained in Orhan Miroglu's column (TZ, 3 Aug 2012), Davutoğlu’s visit to Arbil (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=288561):

There are those who argue Turkey has been caught unprepared for the Middle Eastern Spring and does not have a game plan for it.

Just as was the case in the past, Turkey has a game plan for today and everything is being played according to this plan.

In this context, it can be argued that Turkey was not caught unprepared for the invasion of Iraq that started with the Gulf wars and came 12 years later, but it managed to become one of the major players in the new process.

As a result of the choices Turkey made during the rebuilding of Iraq, the traditional codes of Turkish foreign policy were largely abandoned.

This policy essentially preached friendship and solidarity with the Kurds, who obtained a new status in the region as a result.

The outcome was tremendous. The relations established with Kurdish leaders such as Massoud Barzani who would have been portrayed as feudal tribal leaders until two years ago helped to ease the tension created by the conflict in Turkey and contributed greatly to the social thaw.

If there were not the new and conscious political choices made regarding the Kurdish region in northern Iraq and Turkey in the 1990s and if Turkey continued to maintain its harsh attitude against its domestic Kurdish population, the Kurdish issue would have been in a worse position today. ...

We'll see how the new (since ca. 2001) and gentler Turkey is viewed by the Arab powers. So far, its public actions and statements (viewed from this armchair) speak less to a neo-Ottomanism than to a Neo-Hittitism:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2f/Hittite_Kingdom.png/640px-Hittite_Kingdom.png

For a more in-depth presentation on the Turkish government's more recent approach to its Kurdish problem, see Karaveli, Reconciling Statism
with Freedom - Turkey’s Kurdish Opening (http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/silkroadpapers/1010Karaveli.pdf) (2010) (HT to Ted for the cite and his discussion (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=113998&postcount=116)).

Regards

Mike