Hezbollah Winning in Syria: At What Price?
An interesting backgrounder:
Quote:
Hezbollah’s open intervention in its neighbour’s civil war has from the outset posed many questions and provoked not a little anxiety. What exactly are Hezbollah’s aims in Syria? In light of the reprisals that have been conducted by its Syrian foes and their sympathizers in areas sympathetic to the group or under its control, doesn’t it have more to lose than to gain? Finally, and in particular, does Hezbollah risk losing its popular base and its pre-eminence on the national level in Lebanon?
Link:http://www.lobelog.com/hezbollah-win...at-what-price/
There is an odd passage - my emphasis, perhaps an exaggeration:
Quote:
..the first units were members of local self-defense forces that formed spontaneously in the increasingly conflicted zone along the border. Having never been precisely demarcated, the border between northeast Lebanon and Syria constitutes a large area that is home to some 30 villages actually inhabited by Lebanese — mainly Shiite — citizens, all of whom, however, are subject to Syrian sovereignty. Given their sectarian character, these villages were targeted early on by Sunni jihadi groups linked to the opposition.
Suspects into Collaborators: Assad's gamble that failed
A short article in LRB by Prof. Peter Neumann, of Kings ICSR. It starts with:
Quote:
Three years ago, it was hard to find anything significant about Syria in books about al-Qaida. Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower, which many consider the definitive history of al-Qaida, contains only five references, while Fawaz Gerges’s The Rise and Fall of al-Qaida mentions Syria just once, as the home of Osama bin Laden’s mother. Today, by contrast, Syria is widely – and correctly – seen as the cradle of a resurgent al-Qaida: a magnet for jihadist recruits, which offers the networks, skills and motivation needed to produce a new generation of terrorists. How did this happen? And why did it happen so quickly.
For Bashar al-Assad, the blame lies with outsiders – especially Turkey and the Gulf monarchies – who have used their money and influence to sponsor the uprising, arm the rebels and supply foreign recruits. This is certainly the case, but it’s only part of the story. In the years that preceded the uprising, Assad and his intelligence services took the view that jihad could be nurtured and manipulated to serve the Syrian government’s aims. It was then that foreign jihadists first entered the country and helped to build the structures and supply lines that are now being used to fight the government. To that extent Assad is fighting an enemy he helped to create.
Link:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n07/peter-n...-collaborators
Leadership removal: a short Israeli diversion
Cited in part only:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CrowBat
Indeed, let's expand this 'Israeli example' even further: the Israelis are liquidating all the possible Arab leaders and military commanders already since something like 50 years .....And they were never successful with this 'tactics'. It's rather amazing how insistent are Israelis at reinforcing an obvious failure....
I cannot readily see if you commented when the 'The Gatekeepers' documentary was being debated here, but IIRC six Shin Beth Directors argued that the leadership removal approach was not helping Israeli security. The last comments on the Israeli COIN thread refer:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=4661