Whether the answers are entirely truthful is a different matter…
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
I realize that the military is Alawite-dominated, but I wonder how solid that bloc is. More specifically, I wonder if there are a bunch of Captains and Majors (or equivalent in Syrian terms) out there who feel they've been bypassed in favor of less capable but better connected officers.
No one would be able to answer those questions better than an old spook. [LINK]
Syria: revolution or civil war?
Catching up on my reading I found this first-hand report inside Syria by the BBC's reporter Paul Wood, who entered illegally and remains valid today after a fortnight:http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/al...ivil-war.thtml
He ends with:
Quote:
..the longer this goes on, the greater the chance that a once noble struggle for democracy on the streets will become an ugly sectarian conflict.
It sounds a little piggish (as in Bay of) to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
In my opinion even a "safe area" is impractical and the legitimacy of one along the Turkish border away from the urban areas where the killing is smacks of gesture politics.
Some version of that sort of plan could include the creation of a government–not–in–exile by the current Syrian National Council. That sort of strategy would of course hand an Attack Your Opponents As Foreign Pawns Free card to the Assad government.
Are The Iraqi Government And Shiite Parties Supporting Syria’s President Assad?
Syria is experiencing a bloody Arab Spring, which Iraq might be involved in. Starting in March 2011, protests broke out in Syria, which the government immediately cracked down upon, but was not able to stop. By the fall, there were demonstrations across the country, and Damascus was responding with more and more force; leading to defections from the army. Beginning in the summer, reports emerged that the Iraqi government, along with leading Shiite parties were backing Damascus with political, economic, and military support.
continued
If in doubt, counterclaim ...
The LA Times piece, Russia, China veto new U.N. resolution on Syria, presents three points to the Russian argument:
Quote:
The Russian U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, complained that Western nations had undermined the chance for a political solution by "pushing the opposition towards power."
In short, the Western nations jumped the gun (committed "political aggression"; "economic aggression" via sanctions) by themselves intervening in support of the Syrian opposition without prior UN approval.
Quote:
The U.N. resolution would have condemned the Syrian government's "widespread and gross violations of human rights." Russia sought equal condemnation of Assad's armed opponents, a stance deplored as "reprehensible" by Rice.
This is the equality of filth argument.
Quote:
The Russians also complained that the plan would have obliged the government to withdraw its forces from cities and towns, but no such requirement was imposed on insurgents.
"When the Syrian government forces were pulling out, armed groups were pulling in," Churkin said.
This is the equality of remedies argument.
I'd bet (but cannot tell without peering into Churkin's eyes ;)) these arguments have nothing to do with the reasons why Russia and China blocked the resolution. They are "strategic legalisms"; that is, they support a policy unstated in the legal argument. What the real reasons are, I don't know.
Regards
Mike