Short memories and rose colored glasses
I found this article pretty interesting and had not seen it posted yet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...s-battle-syria
Quote:
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
Quote:
"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...
US to allow Amercan gruop to finance rebels
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/SB1000...242140956.html
Thank you for the tutorial (even if it is wrong...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Here Come The Missile Men
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?
Again, I will try to be less subtle...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
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
Quote:
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
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
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.