Divide & Rule -v- Divide & Survive
A dissenting article in The Independent by Patrick Cockburn, that set off a flurry of critical Tweets about his accusation that the media were giving a slanted view of what was happening. The bigger story was how a YouTube video was strengthening the Bashir regime; the video is not linked, no doubt due to being horrific.
Link:http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...r-8420309.html
Syrian air defences with Russian advisers?
Quote:
Russian military advisers are manning some of Syria's more sophisticated air defences – something that would complicate any future US-led intervention...The advisers have been deployed with new surface-to-air systems and upgrades of old systems, which Moscow has supplied to the Assad regime since the Syrian revolution broke out 21 months ago.
(Later) The upgrades were supplied by Moscow, which sees them as a bulwark against western-imposed regime change and protection of a longstanding investment in Syria. The country includes Russia's biggest electronic eavesdropping post outside its territory, in Latakia, and its toehold on the Mediterranean, a small naval base at Tartus.
Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...nce?CMP=twt_fd
Some interesting points, I'm puzzled that no mention IIRC has been made of the ELINT post before. Given the reported lack of regime manpower aqnd apparent desperation one wonders if the air defence network is fully manned.
Was "Toxic Gas" Used in Homs on Sunday?
Possibly the first use of chemical weapons @ Homs, on Sunday; hat tip to Enduring America:http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/...on-sunday.html
A private, US analytical company concluded:
Quote:
While by no means certain and harkening back to caveats mentioned earlier, information on hand suggests that the chemical agent used to kill 7 in Homs, Syria, was likely Chlorine Gas, Cyanogen Chloride (CK) or Phosgene Gas (CG). This is a preliminary estimate that will likely change as more evidence comes in.
Full report:http://www.osen-hunter.com/images/os...ember%2024.pdf
Given the reported use of unusual explosive devices, such as naval mines, which suggests a measure of desperation and the known, historical capability to manufacture chemical weapons - is this a test of an improvised chemical weapon?
Chemical weapons used? Or a riot control agent?
A leaked US Embassy (Istanbul) report on the alleged use of a chemical weapon is on Twitter, but not in the UK media so far:http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po..._used_in_syria
Quote:
Experts say the symptoms match the effects of Agent 15, known also by its NATO code BZ, which is a CX-level incapacitating agent that is controlled under schedule 2 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Syria is not a party.
One comment suggested BZ / CX was similar to Mace. CDC says:
Quote:
BZ toxicity, which might occur by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption, is an anticholinergic syndrome consisting of a combination of signs and symptoms that might include hallucinations; agitation; mydriasis (dilated pupils); blurred vision; dry, flushed skin; urinary retention; ileus; tachycardia; hypertension; and elevated temperature (>101ºF).
Link:http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/bz/casedef.asp
Letting things take their own course
I believe I mentioned this possibility some time back as one of two possible ways for the US to get sucked into this. Israel attacks Syria based on concerns over chemical weapons going to Jordan - Iran sides with Syria - Iran and Israel get involved directly or indirectly and the west gets dragged screaming and cheering into the fray.
Quote:
President Assad said on Sunday that last Wednesday's raid "unmasked the true role Israel is playing, in collaboration with foreign enemy forces and their agents on Syrian soil, to destabilise and weaken Syria".
But he said, in a meeting with Saeed Jalili, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, that his country's military was able to confront "current threats... and aggression".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21311874
We told you and you stood watching
Quote:
The position of western countries vis--vis the Syrian events is a complex one. But the idea that the west will accept a protracted conflict in order to weaken Syria as a state, exhaust it as a society, and reduce its ability to play a role in the region, is now widespread among the opposition. It is another bleak signal in a conflict without end.
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/vicken-...itics-of-anger
This is the conclusion of a bitter article citing Syrian exiles and a few left inside Syria. I am not saying it is wrong or right.
On SWC we have debated whether a Western intervention, even another option, yes the UN's "blue berets", could be justified and was practical. We have not IIRC considered the impact of not intervening, especially on the Jihadist legend of an uninterested West, with its human rights etc.
As one Syrian journalist says:
Quote:
When the revolution started we filmed the violations and documented the repression. We believed that the work of citizen journalists will have an impact, and that the world will come to our aid.
Not that 'We told you and you stood watching' is not uncommon.
On a more depressing note ...
Intervention? No. Containment, Yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
On SWC we have debated whether a Western intervention, even another option, yes the UN's "blue berets", could be justified and was practical. We have not IIRC considered the impact of not intervening, especially on the Jihadist legend of an uninterested West, with its human rights etc.
I am not in favor of intervening, at least not without a UN mandate that included the power to enforce it. The reason I am not in favor is because I don't know if anyone in the West understand the nature of the conflict, the participants, and their ultimate goals. We like to think of these things as democratic revolutions, and to a point, they are revolutions by the population against a particular autocratic leader. But that does not mean that the next leader will be any less autocratic, just supported by a larger portion of the society (ala Egypt). No matter who wins, someone is going to hate us for centuries to come.
So if there is a UN force, it needs to be an Arab or Muslim force. I am pretty certain that westerners do not have a corner on the humanitarian market. But again, there is the rub. Any such force is likely to be biased to one side or the other: to one tribe or sect. So again, I don't see an easy answer.
I would agree with some form of containment - but that does not seem to fit well with all the outsiders intents. Every outside party seems to have their own group they want to support. And again, it would have to be based on international consensus. Probably unlikely.
In the future the conflict may reach a point where it spills over and outsiders are dragged into it. My guess is it will look something like the beginning or WWI. If we are smart, we will see this coming and head it off. But there is a lot of pent-up hatred in that part of the world, as well as long memories. I am not optimistic.
We told you and you stood watching: beyond Syria
I fully agree parts of the world, not always Western, have 'stood watching' often for good reasons, including practicality. The episode I researched once was the UK decision not to coerce the white minority regime in Rhodesia, effectively leaving the black nationalists to use coercion to take power.
As long time readers will know I have an interest in how "kith & kin" effects national decision-making and to a far lesser extent coalition and international decisions. Returning to Rhodesia the white minority regime had links back to the UK mainly, only to a particular section of the political spectrum who could be nuisance to some UK governments.
Move forward from 1965-1980 to today. Modern media plus social media can put information, news and the visual image in our homes, mobile phones and computers if we watch the news. A few years ago, including the 'Arab Spring' social media became very fashionable as the 'new revolution'.
I am wondering aloud. What is a successful combination that will get external involvement right up to national government action?
Media access, an interested audience with a long standing "kith & kin" connection which may affect national decision making and a clear national interest worthy of resourcing.
Mali is a good, partial illustration. Some media, not much visual pre-French action; a small 6k presence of French nationals and a French policy of confronting AQ (in their African operational style). Another would be the US action over Grenada, a tiny speck in the Caribbean; little media, in the USA's "backyard", concerns over a "new Cuba" and an all-American (white) student medical school.
There is value in mapping the links and looking at the world or parts of the world that way.
Afghanistan after the Soviet exit aroused very few, not even its neighbours (except Pakistan eventually, creating the Taliban), almost no media (I do recall footage of Scuds being fired at Kabul); certainly no "kith & kin" with access to power - all change after 9/11.
Anyway t'is late and good night.
The Syrian deadlock: the military dimension
An interesting Australian comment by the Lowy Institute:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...-(part-2).aspx
Quote:
The Syrian Army's performance also shows the folly of structuring for the war you think you're going to fight. The Syrian military saw itself fighting a land battle a la Golan Heights 1967, and spent decades lolling around in Lebanon while its senior officers enjoyed the financial benefits of such duties.
Sedentary occupation duties do little for initiative, while a heavy reliance on mechanised forces with an equally heavy reliance on firepower to neutralise concentrations of enemy forces leads one to lean towards using a hammer to swat a fly.
I would differ from this. The Syrian Army in Lebanon (1976-2005) was not entirely on 'sedentary occupation duties', fighting a number of factions and I can recall some comments on how they adapted to street / urban fighting - with snipers, the use of artillery and 'political agents' aka intelligence officers talking to everyone. Some information is on:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_...ion_of_Lebanon
Quite plausible is that the Syrian Army has forgotten this, a not un-common phenomena in all armies. We also know that prior to the First Chechen War ( December 1994 to August 1996) the Russian Army had largely forgotten how to conduct urban operations and would have been an unlikely source of advice then. Having spoken recently to a SME on Chechnya the Russians have been harshly suppressing the insurgency for a long time - so the Syrians clearly may have absorbed the lessons learnt.
Quote:
The rebels appear to have achieved some degree of coordination, as demonstrated by their focus on attacking Syrian air bases (in recognition of the threat these bases pose).