West 'could deploy 300k troops following regime collapse'
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/worl...-collapse.html
Today I cannot see any coalition intervening in such numbers.
Citing an earlier post on Libya by Taabistan is a salutary reminder:
Quote:
I'm constantly amazed by westerners and their inability to understand what is a very simple concept: keep out of the affairs of other nations.
Libya is neither an enemy of the United States nor is it a threat to Europe and North America.
I am, however, disgusted by the constant need to interfere either in the name of "peacekeeping" or "regime-change". Call it what you will. It's breaching the sovereignty of our nations.
Two different perspectives ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
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...
Al Qaeda elbowing its way into the conlict
I guess if we are not as interested in controlling the narrative others are...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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/wo...er=rss&emc=rss
I will spell it out this time ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
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.
Truth and reconciliation commissions
TheCurmudgeon just asked:
Quote:
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.
Who could secure the WMD's?
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.
After the fall ... who will help quell the violence?
Quote:
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/op...ml?ref=opinion
Could a Arab force like the one proposed by Tunisia successfully enforce peace when they themselves would be similarly divided?
The not-so-secret war in Syria
A useful collection of articles on:
Quote:
on covert action and intelligence collection in and against Syria
Link:http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2...-war-in-syria/
Evrybody with the ability meddles...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
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.
Quote:
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
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.
Syrian CBW & missile capability
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/disarm...ation-paper-20
Added. A RAND commentary, note it covers safeguarding and disposal:http://www.rand.org/commentary/2012/07/25/GS.html