Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Dayuhan]

In the case of Syria that the situation has spiraled into civil war indicates that there has been another diplomatic/proxy military cock-up. That is blindly obvious. Get it?

How is that a "cock-up" for anyone but the Syrians? No outside party caused this and no outside party ever had a reasonable opportunity to prevent it, so how does it become a "diplomatic/proxy military cock-up"? What did you expect anyone to do about it?

Everybody's incompetent, everything is a "cock-up", but no hint whatsoever of what you think should have been done. Priceless.

[Bill Moore]

Mean while the conflict in Syria continues with important developments. I think the Russians are correct that a large segment of the population still supports Assad. Amazing how tainted our views are when we view the war through the lens of our media who chose sides a long time ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-conflict...145749091.html

Syria conflict: Is the West 'blackmailing' Russia to pass UN resolution?

"To our great regret, there are elements of blackmail," Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow today. "We are being told that if you do not agree to passing the resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, then we shall refuse to extend the mandate of the monitoring mission... We consider it to be an absolutely counterproductive and dangerous approach, since it is unacceptable to use monitors as bargaining chips."

"They tell us that we should persuade Assad to step down of his own free will. This is simply unrealistic," Lavrov said. "He will not leave, not because we are protecting him, but because he has the support of a very significant part of the country’s population... We will accept any decision by the Syrian people on who will govern Syria, as long as it comes from the Syrians themselves."

Interesting opinion on how the UN was to blame on the slaughter in Bosnia and a call to reject any peace plan proposed by the UN.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...357115759.html

Syrian troops will soon regard everyone outside their own units as potential enemies.

In rural areas, these developments mean that the rebels can effectively control large swathes of territory with relatively weak forces. Confining regular forces to bases is a dire sign for the government in any insurgency. The authorities no longer govern much of the population, and can no longer extract taxes and recruits from it.

Viewing these developments, commentators in the West are raising the spectre of "Bosnia". By this they mean the dissolution of a multi-ethnic country into warring ethnic cantonments. The West, of course, is prone to blame others for this outcome: It is the Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic who is being tried in The Hague for his war crimes.

However, the ethnic division and slaughter in Bosnia were a joint production between the ethnic paramilitaries and the UN. It was the efforts to achieve ceasefire and protect civilians that locked in place the ethnic division of the country. The US-sponsored Dayton accords ratified the ethnic separatism of the paramilitaries, completing their work for them.

A little regional tension

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...ention-in.aspx

Iran warns Turkey against military intervention in Syria

"Any attack on Syrian territory will meet with a harsh response, and the Iranian-Syrian mutual defence agreement will be activated," the Al-Watan newspaper said.

"Turkey has received very strong warnings in the past few hours and the following message -- beware changing the rules of the game," the paper added.

"Turkey has agreed with the United States on a military intervention limited to the north of Syria, specifically the northern province of Aleppo, to pave the way for the creation of a safe haven guarded by the armed gangs."

Is Asia pivoting to the Middle East, I don't think so but the rumors are starting...

http://english.sina.com/world/2012/0730/491368.html

China denied "missile destroyer heads for joint drill with Syria

According to some reports, there will be maneuvers in Syria sea area with Iran, Syria, China and Russia partaking in. In a written response to these concerns, Chinese Ministry of National Defense has denied the reports, declaring that the Type 052 “Qingdao” (hull 113) destroyer was on the way to visit Ukraine as planned.

[jcustis]

I saved my original comment for this thread and changed it to a PM. Don't bother replying JMA. Not worth my time either really, and no need to go back to ding-dong on the board.

[Surferbeetle]

David,

Greatly appreciated this link,

A useful collection of articles on:

Link:http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2...-war-in-syria/

Ganulv,

Greatly appreciated your shared link as well (Syrian army being aided by Iranian forces, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, Guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 May 2012 11.41 EDT). The Quds force...skilled regional trouble makers and yet they, like many military forces, are stuck in flatland when it comes to envisioning problem sets and solutions useful to a multidimensional populace.

The Alpine Fortress would seem a good bet if a government were trying to survive a zombie apocalypse. But it would seem a less good bet if a government were trying to outlast an opponent with friends with satellite intelligence they might be willing to pass along.

If the Assads were to be interested in going the well-regulated militia route they have friends who would be able to help out with that. They would seem an awfully hard sell given their penchant for centralization, of course.

Bill M.,

Thought this perspective might be of interest:

Syria is different through Russian eyes, By Andrei Nekrasov, July 30, 2012 7:33 pm, Financial Times, www.ft.com

It is normal that news headlines differ from country to country, but the western world might be interested to know that Syria has not been among the main news items in Russia. If there is a report on an event that is all but impossible to ignore, such as the massacre in Tremseh on July 12 it is like this one from news2.ru: “Syrian insurgents have been instructed to kill as many people as possible.”

The Russian word boyeviki, used to describe the rebel fighters, is less neutral than “insurgents” and is just one step away from bandits or terrorists. It passed from slang into the mass media during the war in Chechnya in the 1990s as a way of branding the Chechen separatist fighters. It is also worth noting in the report cited above the use of the words “instructed to kill”. They are intended to hint clearly that the opposition are acting on the orders of some invisible masters.

Most people in Russia see the fighting there as a proxy war between their country and the west. While the humanitarian crisis receives little attention, the diplomacy is the focus of regular and detailed reports. The “struggle for peace” of foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and Russia’s UN mission, against “aggressive western powers bent on force”, are what we mostly hear about in reports on Syria.

The government encourages this proxy war narrative, as it has a vested interest in portraying itself as the defender of a nation’s geopolitical position against the west’s perceived global expansion. While many of Mr Putin’s other policies are increasingly under attack, most Russians share the divisive world view that he projects. Even the independent internet-based media’s “objective” reporting tends to present Mr Assad’s version first and as fully legitimate. That is not a result of any direct pressure from the government.

More and more, the Russian people are told that vlast – a word that does not really have an English equivalent, incorporating authority and political power with a hint of brutal force – comes from God. Attacking it, for whatever reason, is both sinful and criminal.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Unity, no UN, and continued war; the combination that is the answer to Syria

However, the ethnic division and slaughter in Bosnia were a joint production between the ethnic paramilitaries and the UN. It was the efforts to achieve ceasefire and protect civilians that locked in place the ethnic division of the country. The US-sponsored Dayton accords ratified the ethnic separatism of the paramilitaries, completing their work for them.

Those who believe in a free Syria for all Syrians can work to avert these outcomes in their own country. First, they must ensure that the rebels are multi-ethnic and multi-denominational. Alawites and Christians, Sunni and Shia, all must have their place in the rebel ranks. Any discrimination must be strictly punished - and in public - especially when against Alawites, the sect to which Assad and his family belong.

One outcome of such a policy - if it is pursued effectively and aggressively - is that Alawite troops and other regime supporters will see that they have the option to defect and escape the regime's bloody last stand.

Each defection removes one more iota of military power from the regime and makes it that much easier to defeat.

Secondly, and more importantly, Free Syria must resist the temptations of the UN, the siren songs of the human rights community, and the diplomacy of those such as Kofi Annan. They desire only to stop the fighting, believing that the worst evil is war, not Assad and his murderous regime.

Free Syria! War is your friend and victory is the solution.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...357115759.html

Meanwhile ...

As evidence mounts that foreign Islamist jihadis are fighting alongside Syria’s increasingly radicalized rebels, Christians in Aleppo and elsewhere are taking up arms, often supplied by the regime.

“We saw what happened to the Christians in Iraq,” Abu George, a Christian resident of Aleppo’s Aziza district told GlobalPost. “What is going on in Aleppo is not a popular revolution for democracy and freedom. The fighters of the so-called Free Syrian Army are radical Sunnis who want to establish an Islamic state.”

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...arian-conflict

And so, as is often the case, once the authority of a regime that has been managing to keep old ethnic or religious rivalries at bay disintegrates, these old rivalries are unleashed. As always it complicates the situation, but in sadly predictable ways. Not banking on that unity thing happening.

[Wyatt]

If a sports team is losing most every game if does not take a rocket scientist to realise and know something is seriously wrong with that team. And you know what, stating the blindingly obvious - that the team is failing - does not require that the critic must have the coaching and management ability to fix the problem. He is just stating the obvious.

I dont understand why you seem to revel in perceived failures of our military or the wars they get tasked with. We havent done everything right but we certainly have not failed at everything either. You lost your war and your country, musta sucked. No one here makes any attempt to drag you through that over and over again.

This is not to say that I want to hide from criticism but your choice of diction suggests to me anyway that you would rather us not fix our mistakes, lest it remove a favored talking point.

In addition if one is to look as foreign policy as a whole, you must consider USAID and the peace corps as it is these men and women that will most closely match the lessons from "The Ugly American" rather than the batt boy who jams 500 lumens in your face at 1am. This discussion of foreign policy efficacy has left the lambs behind for the most part.

Id like to think most of the people on this board are here to get better at whatever they do, whether its door kicker, policy wonk or a being a good neighbor as an expat. Some "constructive" on the criticism would be cool.

[Ken White]

We have been through this 1,000 times before...

Or maybe 11,000,000...

who gets to decide what is in the US national interest. Only one person... the President of the USA. Yet time and time again we get the smart guys who believe that they are somehow able to decide what is in the US national interest.

Yet again, your presumption is inccorect.

George Friedman from Stratfor explains it well: LINK

[TheCurmudgeon]

The Syrian government says the rebel armed groups backed and funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are committing “horrific crimes” against civilians in the capital, Damascus, and the city of Aleppo.

In two letters addressed to the head of the UN Security Council and the UN secretary general, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said that the rebels backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are using civilians in Aleppo as human shields, and killing anyone who does not support their crimes.

http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=333256

Interestingly enough, the exact same article can be found in the Terran Times http://tehrantimes.com/middle-east/1...c-crimes-syria

Also
SYRIA: Atrocities committed against Christians by US-NATO supported "Opposition" Rebels

GRAPHIC WARNING! ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY NATO’S FSA “FREEDOM FIGHTERS”

Which all support the counter-narrative that the rebels are not democratic freedom fighters:

Evidence to justify this presumptive mainstream narrative is hard to find. Whilst the opposition includes democrats, many of the West's preferred leaders are of limited relevance inside Syria, having for years lived comfortably abroad. Syria's regional importance and sectarian complexity also render unreliable superficially attractive comparisons to potential democratic outcomes elsewhere.

To some extent, we can use our own senses to assess who those with power on the ground in Syria are. Watch rebel videos, broadcast daily by our media, and consider how often you've heard 'Allahu Akbar' shouting Sunni protesters or fighters make any mention of democracy, tolerance, human or women's rights - or indeed women playing any role at all. The rebels' agenda is to overthrow Assad.

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticl...49&MID=0&PID=0

Add to this the transition of the narrative from one of a democratic fight for freedom to jihad against the Alawites:

Rebels say the conflict in Syria has angered many Sunni Arabs, who see it as an Alawite military campaign to ethnically cleanse Syria and create a pure Alawite state stretching from the Mediterranean coast to central regions of the country.

"The Alawites are acting with vengeance. They have been fooled by Assad into believing that this is a life or death war for them and if the Sunnis win they see themselves as being doomed," Salloum said.

"Look at their hatred," Salloum said, referring to a video widely circulated by Syrian activists that purportedly shows Alawite pro-Assad militiamen, known as shabbiha, using a knife to slit the throat of a handcuffed young rebel male in Idlib in what Sunnis say reveals deep seated sectarian grudges.

"The Alawites have taken over everything in Syria, political power, the economy, the state jobs, and now they want to continue enslaving our Sunni brothers and sisters, they tell them your God is Assad," said Bin Shamer.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mid...#axzz2291YCdJm

Oh what a tangled web ... and then there is the Iranian version of events along with the associated threats:

Iran's foreign minister accused Israel of being behind "a conspiracy against Syria."

"It is completely ridiculous and delusive to believe that there is a possibility of creating a vacuum in the leadership in Syria," Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said. "We call upon the people of the region to be fully aware and not to move in the wrong direction, because there will be severe consequences that will go beyond the borders of the region to the outside world."

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-29/m...n-opposition/3

Add to that Russian interests in the port and China's and Russia's concerns that if human rights violations constitute reasons for foreign intervention then the idea of sovereignty is dead and they are in trouble. This situation is turning into a witches brew of interests with a multitude of players stirring the pot. Will they be able to keep it from boiling over beyond the borders of Syria?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Thinking about this it would now appear that the options are very limited. Direct military intervention will require some legal justification no matter who executes it unless the Arab League has some provisions that allow for some type of Peace Keeping force. NATO involvement would require a real threat to Turkey which, as yet, does not exist. I am unaware of any other pacts that could be invoked and P2K does not realistically hold water in this case. It is a political conflict, not a genocide or a humanitarian disaster. Russia and China may come around allowing UN action, but the situation would have to be a clear threat to them in some way before they would go along.

If direct military action were undertaken the number of militaries capable of doing it are probably just as limited. US/NATO, Russia, and that is about it. The UN could hodgepodge something but I doubt it would work. Everyone would have an ethnic or religious argument against one force or another. US/NATO would be pro-christian and pro-Israeli, Russia would be pro-Alawite. Perhaps China could do the job.

Less than military intervention options are, in effect, what everyone is trying now. And the conflict IS extending beyond the borders of Syria. Not so much boiling over into other nations although that may still happen, but more like a whirlpool sucking others into the conflict, the Sunni fighters most notably. This does not even take into account the WMDs which any number of outside players have an interest in either securing, obtaining, using, or destroying them.

As much as I hate to say it, SHOULD a peace keeping/peace enforcement force ever be needed, there are going to be a limited number of militaries capable of doing the job.

[davidbfpo]

An interesting comment by ORG on an issue which is rarely examined, just reported as death and injuries:

The count of the death toll is imperfect, but attempts are being made to replace unsubstantiated rhetoric with reliable records

Link:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u..._numbers_syria

This issue appeared IIRC during the Iraqi years when a medical publication, IIRC The Lancet, published an estimate of those who had died.

[Entropy]

George Friedman from Stratfor explains it well: LINK

Thanks for that, Ken! Friedman has a bit of a mixed record, but I think this piece is very good.

[Entropy]

Steve, don't waste your time, it's a trap.

Sorry, can't resist:

[JMA]

Or maybe 11,000,000... Yet again, your presumption is inccorect.

George Friedman from Stratfor explains it well: LINK

Thank you for that.

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. 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. 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".

[JMA]

Sorry, can't resist:

Maybe should consider introducing an age restriction around here?

[TheCurmudgeon]

An interesting look at Russia's strategic interests in Syria beyond Assad ...

In 2009, by decree of then President Medvedev, Russia established its National Security Strategy to 2020. The main objectives of this strategy are the ‘sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, and likewise the preservation of civil peace, political and social stability’.[7] To achieve these objectives Russia must guarantee the security of its borders, which requires a degree of influence over its neighbours, either through cooperative measures or otherwise.[8] In that vein, arms sales and economic assistance to Syria have continued to this day. These provide Russia some influence over the Assad regime and, it is hoped, some indirectly over Turkey. This influence, and the control it helps give Russia over the Black Sea, is a key factor explaining Russia’s actions in the Syrian crisis. Its actions regarding Syria fit into a broader pattern of manoeuvres designed to secure Russian control over the Black Sea, and thereby guarantee the security of Russia’s borders.

http://theriskyshift.com/2012/07/a-s...#ixzz22ElDe34n

Russia's only existing naval base outside the Soviet Union is located in the Syrian port of Tartus. A squadron of Russian navy ships, including several assault ships carrying marines, is currently heading to Tartus in a show of support for a longtime ally whom Moscow protected from international sanctions and continued to supply with weapons.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...1#.UBhLQkRNDR0

Meanwhile the British and the Russians both have ships in or headed to the Eastern Mediterranean:

Barely mentioned by the mainstream media, the warships involved in the Cougar 12 naval exercise will also participate in the planned evacuation of "British nationals from the Middle East, should the ongoing conflict in Syria further spill across borders into neighboring Lebanon and Jordan.":

The British would likely send the HMS Illustrious, a helicopter carrier, along with the HMS Bulwark, an amphibious ship, as well as an advanced destroyer to provide defenses for the task force. On board will be several hundred Royal Marine commandos, as well as a complement of AH-64 attack helicopters (the same ones used in Libya last year). A fleet of French ships, including the Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier, carrying a complement of Rafale fighter aircraft, are expected to join them.

Those forces are expected stay offshore and could escort specially chartered civilian ships meant to pick up foreign nationals fleeing Syria and surrounding countries. (ibtimes.com, 24 July 2012).

Sources in the British Ministry of Defense, while confirming the Royal Navy's "humanitarian mandate" in the planned evacuation program, have categorically denied "any intention of a combat role for British forces [against Syria]".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=32079

Russia 'sends six warships to Syria' but denies it has anything to do with growing tensions

Who says this conflict doesn't have the potential for rapid and uncontrolled expansion beyond Syria's borders written all over it. It is starting to look like Sarajevo circa 1914

[TheCurmudgeon]

Is Syria totally hopeless? There’s one shred of hope: if, and that’s a big if, the global powers that be — the five permanent members of the United Nations, the Arab League and Iran — could find the political will, they could unite, step in and get all the factions to stop the killing. They could then establish safe havens for all civilians, and launch an all-inclusive dialogue in which the Sunni majority and all minority groups are represented. Of course, Al Qaeda and other radical foreign militias must be kept out in the cold.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opini...-puzzle/533503

Not positive, but I am pretty sure Jakarta is not in Kansas ...

[JMA]

Who says this conflict doesn't have the potential for rapid and uncontrolled expansion beyond Syria's borders written all over it. It is starting to look like Sarajevo circa 1914

Don't panic

I was told by one of the smart guys around here that:

The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria and aren't going to do anything more than vote against intervention at the UN. The Russians aren't going to stick their necks out for Assad either, in any way beyond verbiage.

Personally I wouldn't take that to the bank...

[TheCurmudgeon]

China may not give a rat's ass about Assad, but they are interested in Syrian oil.


Iran Aids Syrian Oil Exports to China, Report Says

[Dayuhan]

Friedman has a bit of a mixed record, but I think this piece is very good.

Agree on both counts. I got that in my inbox as well, and thought of posting a link, but Ken beat me to it. Stratfor irritates me at times but I still stay on their list, though I've never gone to the paid level.

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.

Neither of the above, as explained in the piece Ken provided.

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.

Has anything come out of the White House to suggest a belief that the US has sufficiently compelling interests in Syria to justify intervention? Not that I know of.

Out here in the ex-colonies we have opinions about US interests, but since our opinions don't mean anything to anyone we monitor the debate and keep track of perceptions of interests. So far as I can see the idea that US interests in Syria are sufficiently compelling to justify the expense and risk of intervention has little traction with any significant political faction.

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".

Has anyone here suggested that "they alone know what is in the best interests of the USA"? Since when has the observation that nobody has presented a compelling case for an interest in Syria sufficient to justify intervention and no significant political faction supports such intervention equated to an attempt to define what is in the national interest?

Personally, I've taken two positions here.

Regarding intervention in general, I've stated the opinion that non-intervention should be the default choice. To override that default two things have to be in place:

1. A compelling national interest
2. A concrete, practical, limited and viable plan for intervention

Obviously the determination of whether the interest is sufficiently compelling and whether the plan is viable have to be made through debate among the various influences that make up foreign policy, but given the expense and risk of intervention, the burden of proof must be on those who propose or support intervention.

If you wish to contest that opinion, feel free to do so, but it might better be done on another thread.

Regarding US intervention is Syria specifically, I've stated that public support for intervention is low (understatement), and that no significant political faction has supported intervention or presented a convincing case for a US interest that is sufficiently compelling to even begin to make a case for intervention. Those opinions are based on observation.

I've also stated that as far as I know, no concrete, practical, limited and viable plan for intervention, military or otherwise, has at any stage been put on the table.

If anyone has evidence to suggest that either of those perceptions is inaccurate, please provide it and I'll happily reconsider those opinions.

Intervention by non-US parties seems too hypothetical a construct to be worth discussion.

I've also stated that in my opinion anyone who claims that policy to date has been stupid, incompetent, duplicitous, mendacious, or a cock-up cannot be taken seriously unless they are willing to say what they think should have been done and what they think the results of that action would have been.

I did say that I believe there might possibly be circumstances in which intervention to secure WMD stocks could be justified. That opinion is based on two points:

First, it is possible that in some circumstance the threat of terrorists gaining access to Syrian WMD sotcks might be sufficiently compelling to justify intervention.

Second, finding, removing, or destroying WMD stocks is a concrete, specific, limited mission suitable for accomplishment by military force... unlike, say, "nation-building".

I have great confidence in the ability of the US military to gain access to any point in Syria and manage any weapon stocks that are there. The intel is a bigger question mark, but that would have to be assessed by those who make the decision. Anyone here who is in a position to know is not in a position to say.

I have no confidence at all in our capacity to build nations, not because the US gets it wrong but because the vagueness of the goals and the lack of appropriate means make it virtually impossible to get right. It's a task that should not be taken on, in Syria or, ideally, anywhere else... IMO of course.

I don't see how any of that constitutes an attempt to unilaterally define US interests, though given the lack of any coherent argument claiming a US interest sufficient to justify intervention and the lack of support for intervention among both the public and the policymakers I think it's safe to say at this point that no such interest exists. US interests are defined, ultimately, by Americans, and they seem to have reached a consensus on this one.

[Dayuhan]

China may not give a rat's ass about Assad, but they are interested in Syrian oil.


Iran Aids Syrian Oil Exports to China, Report Says

Syria's oil exports are minimal, and until recently went mostly to Europe. The Chinese may be buying a bit of oil to circumvent sanctions and slip some money to Assad, but there's not enough oil in the picture to mean anything to them at all on a level of energy strategy.

Who says this conflict doesn't have the potential for rapid and uncontrolled expansion beyond Syria's borders written all over it. It is starting to look like Sarajevo circa 1914

How so? What specific scenarios do we fear? Is intervention likely to reduce or exacerbate that potential?