Syria: a civil war (closed)

[JMA]

JMA,

Why would Russia take such a threat seriously? What makes you think the Syrian people want the "help" of the USA? Also, what makes you think Russia has the required influence with Syria? For Syria this is a matter of regime survival and "pressure" from outside governments isn't going to have much effect.

All one needs to do is put Russia on notice that the reaction to the internal situation in Syria (from the US (maybe) and the EU (more likely)) will be more than mere verbal condemnation and ineffective sanctions. Its not a threat (the US would never have the balls to threaten Russia) it just offered them a chance to act on the side of right. Neither Russia nor China could support action against regimes that crackdown on internal dissidents and commit human rights abuse against their citizens because that would rebound on them through their own actions.

You really need to be more astute in your observations. The young Syrians who take to the streets unarmed in protest seem to willingly and without fear risk death or wounding from the regime's trigger happy military forces. Day after day they take to the streets and offer themselves as targets. There is a very powerful revolution taking place in Syria right now (and please don't you ask what momentum is building in this regard as well).

But yes the US will dither as the spin doctors try to figure out how to choose a course of action where the US will appear to be all things to all men (which is impossible as they should have learned from Libya). This hesitancy, vacillation and indecision is to be expected against the background of the recent pronouncements of Russia - Russia warns against interference in Syria

This is all academic of course since the American people won't support yet another major military intervention in yet another middle-east country.

Ah.. another who speaks with authority on behalf of all the people of the US.

Iraq and Afghanistan, it is true, have been badly managed and should have either never happened or been wrapped up long ago. You can't be talking about Libya as it is hardly "yet another major military intervention" is it. But in the case of Libya had Obama gone for a quick effective intervention that would have been all over (from the US military involvement point of view) by now and on the list of concerns. One of the costs of indecisive command and leadership is that these poorly implemented interventions will tend to stack up in the "incomplete" column and have a negative impact on current operational possibilities.

Now the potential spinoff benefit of this whole Syrian revolution is that it may spread to Iran. That would be the great prize and the US and the EU should help that process along as much as they can.

[Dayuhan]

All one needs to do is put Russia on notice that the reaction to the internal situation in Syria (from the US (maybe) and the EU (more likely)) will be more than mere verbal condemnation and ineffective sanctions.

But it won't be... certainly not from the EU (more likely?? Surely you jest...) and not likely from the US either. The Russians know it and so do we, so what's the point of blustering about it?

Its not a threat (the US would never have the balls to threaten Russia) it just offered them a chance to act on the side of right.

Why would the US want to threaten Russia, especially over a matter that doesn't even involve Russia? What would be the point? Or are we supposed to threaten people on a regular basis, on general principles, just for practice, or because we can?

But yes the US will dither as the spin doctors try to figure out how to choose a course of action where the US will appear to be all things to all men (which is impossible as they should have learned from Libya). This hesitancy, vacillation and indecision is to be expected against the background of the recent pronouncements of Russia - Russia warns against interference in Syria

I can't see how Russia, or anything Russia said, would have anything to do with it at all. Even were the bear as meek as a sea slug, the US and EU would still want nothing to do with this one.

There are few things easier than advocating reckless, high-risk intervention from the safety of a remote armchair like yours or mine. After all, our opinions have no consequences, and neither do our decisions. Those who make policy haven't that luxury.

Ah.. another who speaks with authority on behalf of all the people of the US.

It's a reasonable conclusion, and I think anyone who's been paying attention to US public opinion would agree with it.

But in the case of Libya had Obama gone for a quick effective intervention that would have been all over (from the US military involvement point of view) by now and on the list of concerns. One of the costs of indecisive command and leadership is that these poorly implemented interventions will tend to stack up in the "incomplete" column and have a negative impact on current operational possibilities.

Again, your opinion.

Quick effective intervention can remove a government. Removing a government doesn't mean anything is "all over". Unfortunately, whoever removes the government is generally held responsible for managing what comes after. Removing a government isn't where the problems end, it's where they start... and while it's all very well to speak of leaving things for the locals to sort out their way, weren't you recently advocating intervention in the Ivory Coast precisely to prevent the locals from sorting things out their way?

Now the potential spinoff benefit of this whole Syrian revolution is that it may spread to Iran. That would be the great prize and the US and the EU should help that process along as much as they can.

Meaning that if we get sucked into Syria we may have the opportunity to get sucked into Iran as well? What a wonderful pleasure that would be... I can think of few better arguments for staying out.

[Entropy]

What Dayuhan said.

[JMA]

But it won't be... certainly not from the EU (more likely?? Surely you jest...) and not likely from the US either. The Russians know it and so do we, so what's the point of blustering about it?

Why would the US want to threaten Russia, especially over a matter that doesn't even involve Russia? What would be the point? Or are we supposed to threaten people on a regular basis, on general principles, just for practice, or because we can?

I can't see how Russia, or anything Russia said, would have anything to do with it at all. Even were the bear as meek as a sea slug, the US and EU would still want nothing to do with this one.

There are few things easier than advocating reckless, high-risk intervention from the safety of a remote armchair like yours or mine. After all, our opinions have no consequences, and neither do our decisions. Those who make policy haven't that luxury.

It's a reasonable conclusion, and I think anyone who's been paying attention to US public opinion would agree with it.

Again, your opinion.

Quick effective intervention can remove a government. Removing a government doesn't mean anything is "all over". Unfortunately, whoever removes the government is generally held responsible for managing what comes after. Removing a government isn't where the problems end, it's where they start... and while it's all very well to speak of leaving things for the locals to sort out their way, weren't you recently advocating intervention in the Ivory Coast precisely to prevent the locals from sorting things out their way?

Meaning that if we get sucked into Syria we may have the opportunity to get sucked into Iran as well? What a wonderful pleasure that would be... I can think of few better arguments for staying out.

Lets sit back and watch how things develop shall we?

But I tend to agree with you that it is probably better for the US to surrender now and be done with it all. What a pathetic end to a once superpower.

[Dayuhan]

To whom should we surrender?

Overextension is the graveyard of superpowers. Throughout history empires and powerful nations have crumbled because they pushed too much of their strength abroad, bled themselves dry in faraway conflicts with no bearing on their interests, bit off more than they could chew. Caution in overseas engagement, and refraining from action when one has no pressing need to act, are ways for great powers to survive, not the cause of their demise. Certainly the US has made its share of errors, more often in overaction than in underaction, but it's not too late to correct the course and adopt a posture more consistent with real-world capacities and interests.

[JMA]

To whom should we surrender?

Anyone. Try Mexico.

Overextension is the graveyard of superpowers. Throughout history empires and powerful nations have crumbled because they pushed too much of their strength abroad, bled themselves dry in faraway conflicts with no bearing on their interests, bit off more than they could chew. Caution in overseas engagement, and refraining from action when one has no pressing need to act, are ways for great powers to survive, not the cause of their demise. Certainly the US has made its share of errors, more often in overaction than in underaction, but it's not too late to correct the course and adopt a posture more consistent with real-world capacities and interests.

No, that's the wrong spin.

I suggest that it has much more to do with a level of arrogance (by those subsequent generations who did not contribute anything but inherited what was built and created by others) which leads to bad policy, bad strategy, bad intervention planning and all the rest. Instead of learning from previous mistakes the US seems to make bigger and more costly mistakes in sync with their 4-8 year wild swings in foreign policy. Remember the quote about those who do not learn from history? Exactly.

[Dayuhan]

No, that's the wrong spin.

I suggest that it has much more to do with a level of arrogance (by those subsequent generations who did not contribute anything but inherited what was built and created by others) which leads to bad policy, bad strategy, bad intervention planning and all the rest. Instead of learning from previous mistakes the US seems to make bigger and more costly mistakes in sync with their 4-8 year wild swings in foreign policy. Remember the quote about those who do not learn from history? Exactly.

You're welcome to your own spin (or we could just call them interpretations), but I fail to see how reluctance to intervene in place where we've no overpowering reason to intervene constitutes failure to learn the lessons of history... rather the opposite.

Like every other nation, the US makes its share of mistakes. Ours tend to be a bit more obvious, as we're bigger and more visible. I certainly have my own criticisms of US foreign policy, but all this rending of garments and melodramatic wailing about the passing of American power seems a bit over the top. Whatever Obama has done or failed to do, he has at least not committed the US to anything on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan, and he has at least remained reasonably true to the policy he elucidated as a candidate. Long way from perfect but hardly disastrous.

If we don't go where you want us to go, that doesn't mean we haven't the courage, balls, or decisiveness to go there. It may just mean we don't see any point in going there and we don't want to go there. Not as if we've any obligation to cleanse the Augean stables of the world.

[Entropy]

JMA,

Explain exactly how America benefits by threatening Russia over Syria and threatening to go to war with Syria as well? Either you think the threats will work or you think the US has the capability to make good on those threats if the bluffs are called. Either way there doesn't seem to be much in it for this American and yes, I think I do speak for the majority of my country on this subject.

One thing I've learned over the years is there is no satisfying America's foreign critics. Either we are ditherers who are afraid to use our muscle or we're bully's indiscriminately whacking whatever is in view. While we should always listen and consider good counsel we need to act in a way that is consistent with our interests and not what others would like our interests to be.

The US isn't the country you'd like it to be and I doubt it will ever meet your standards, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Get used to disappointment.

[JMA]

JMA,

Explain exactly how America benefits by threatening Russia over Syria and threatening to go to war with Syria as well? Either you think the threats will work or you think the US has the capability to make good on those threats if the bluffs are called. Either way there doesn't seem to be much in it for this American and yes, I think I do speak for the majority of my country on this subject.

One thing I've learned over the years is there is no satisfying America's foreign critics. Either we are ditherers who are afraid to use our muscle or we're bully's indiscriminately whacking whatever is in view. While we should always listen and consider good counsel we need to act in a way that is consistent with our interests and not what others would like our interests to be.

The US isn't the country you'd like it to be and I doubt it will ever meet your standards, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Get used to disappointment.

OK, lets start again shall we.

I said:

I would (if I were the US president ) give the Russians until the end of the month to reign in the Syrian regime or will offer the people of Syria protection from the excesses of the regime.

Where is the threat there? I know the US would never threaten Russia (has not now has never had the bottle to do so).

Just letting them know that it would be nice if they can exert some pressure on the Syrian regime to stop the killing (all the while knowing that if they tried to the Syrians are too far down the line for turning).

Now why has Russia an interest in Syria? Google the ports of Latakia and Tartous and see what is planned there and while you are doing that look up the pending arms deal.

So that hypothetical is over so view the US and the EU should publicly and through private channels make contact with the Syrian opposition groups to see how they can help. Soft stuff now with the promise of weapons through Iraq later if they prefer.

OK so this the second time I have had to correct a misunderstanding of my position by you. Luckily I am a patient man...

[Entropy]

JMA,

To begin, intervention in Syria to "protect" the people from their regime is a threat against Syria. The actions that you've described are an act of war against Syria.

Secondly, it is also a threat against Russia because you've promised an action that goes against Russia's interests and you've delivered that promise in the form of an ultimatum complete with a timetable and no quid pro quo. The message is: Comply with our wishes or we will intervene in Syria knowing full well your opposition to an intervention and knowing full well an intervention would materially damage your interests.

I'm not sure how that doesn't constitute a threat, but maybe you can explain. Furthermore, your belief that your statement does not constitute a threat doesn't mean the Russian's will interpret it the same way as you. They would likely see it for what it appears to be - an ultimatum which will bring negative consequences for Russia should Russia fail to comply with US demands.

Of course, this is all assuming that Russia actually has the requisite influence to change Syrian behavior, which is not at all a sound assumption. Assad wants, first and foremost, to stay in power. What does Russia have to offer that could possibly convince Assad to either leave or...what exactly? Can Russia really pressure Assad to take measures that would embolden the rebels and undermine his own power and authority? Not unless Assad has a suicide wish.

[JMA]

JMA,

To begin, intervention in Syria to "protect" the people from their regime is a threat against Syria. The actions that you've described are an act of war against Syria.

Wow, now you have me worried.

Step one would be to judge the moment to withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Assad regime and declare solidarity with the people of Syria "in their struggle for freedom and democracy" (to use old terminology) and support them in this struggle (with any suitable means) against the now illegitimate regime.

Secondly, it is also a threat against Russia because you've promised an action that goes against Russia's interests and you've delivered that promise in the form of an ultimatum complete with a timetable and no quid pro quo. The message is: Comply with our wishes or we will intervene in Syria knowing full well your opposition to an intervention and knowing full well an intervention would materially damage your interests.

You could also tell the Russians to wipe their eyes in that you are not happy about them developing port facilities in the Mediterranean for their navy either.

The Russians know that unless Assad stays in power their plans for use of Syrian ports by their navy is as a good as dead. They find themselves in a similar position with Syria that the US found itself in with Egypt. They are not as smart as you give them credit for and are unlikely to have learned from the US error with Egypt and are likely to screw it up as well.

This offers the US and the EU an opportunity to help an Arab country which does not have significant oil out of humanitarian solidarity and without a hidden agenda and at little cost.

Like the US have lost out in Egypt so the Russians will lose out in Syria. Time to move on.

[Lamson719]

Hi,

I am new to this forum. I'm from London (non military.) I have interviewed a few people for SWJ (Iraq diplomats, Jim Willbanks)

I don't think this is the end for Assad, but it could be the beginning of the end.

While Russia and China are likely to be neutral or supportive, Syria's recent new ally Turkey are publicly uncomfortable with the crackdowns.

Add to that a large number of Baathist resignations, reports of troops disobeying orders (and troop vs. troop firefights apparently) combined with divisions at the high level of Assads inner circle and the ruling Alawite Shias, he is definitely in trouble.

The problem is, the military seem so far extremely loyal- like Gaddafi he appears to have skilfully organised and deployed them to avoid a coup. (there were many coups in Syria from the 50's to the 60's. If I remember rightly Jeremy Bowen counted 12 in the 1950's alone.)

Likewise, I don't see how much more sanctions can hurt a regime that's suffering economically quite badly already.

While we can fund opposition (and the good news is there is a strong non salafi element, like in Libya and Egypt) there is not much we can do apart from sanction, fund, watch and hope.

Ironically, I think it is these secular tyrants who have facilitated the secular, facebook organised opposition to their rule.

It would be damn good to see Assad go down. The challenge is that the west rise to the Arab spring- like in Libya and Egypt, that will involve a distinct outreach campaign, to bravely say, "this is a clean slate. Let's drink a (non alcoholic) toast to the future." Now is not the time to fear Islam.

If we get this right, this could be the end of Arab Nationalism AND Al Qaida...


In the meantime, lets hope Iraq's border with Syria is kept as tightly shut as possible.

[Entropy]

Step one would be to judge the moment to withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Assad regime and declare solidarity with the people of Syria "in their struggle for freedom and democracy" (to use old terminology) and support them in this struggle (with any suitable means) against the now illegitimate regime.

First it was "offer the people of Syria protection" and now it's this. Let's cut to the chase instead of this semantic pussy-footing: Along the continuum of possible action from diplomacy to a full-on invasion of Syria, what, in your opinion, should be the upper limit for action by the US in supporting the "people" of Syria? Please be precise.

You could also tell the Russians to wipe their eyes in that you are not happy about them developing port facilities in the Mediterranean for their navy either.

Who cares? The Russian/Soviet Navy have used Syrian ports for decades. What exactly are we worried about? Have you looked at the Russian OPTEMPO generally and in the med specifically as well as the material condition of the Russian Navy lately?

The Russians know that unless Assad stays in power their plans for use of Syrian ports by their navy is as a good as dead.

Yes, which is why your ultimatum to the Russians won't work....

This offers the US and the EU an opportunity to help an Arab country which does not have significant oil out of humanitarian solidarity and without a hidden agenda and at little cost.

Little cost? That all depends on how you answer my first question in this comment. If all you're willing to do is withdraw recognition of Syria and other diplomatic actions then the cost might indeed be "little." If you plan on doing what you originally suggested - "protecting" the people of Syria - then the costs won't be so little.

[Dayuhan]

Step one would be to judge the moment to withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Assad regime and declare solidarity with the people of Syria "in their struggle for freedom and democracy" (to use old terminology) and support them in this struggle (with any suitable means) against the now illegitimate regime.

What about "the people" who aren't protesting, many of whom are likely to take a very dim view of US intervention in their country. US opposition to a government in the Middle East is often seen as conferring legitimacy on that government: it enables that government to portray itself as a nationalist force resisting greedy self-serving Israeli-manipulated US imperialists. We may think that narrative is silly, but it has traction in a lot of places.

"The people" vs "the government" is almost always a vast oversimplification.

You could also tell the Russians to wipe their eyes in that you are not happy about them developing port facilities in the Mediterranean for their navy either.

Who cares? The Russians have as much right to use Mediterranean ports as the US does.

Like the US have lost out in Egypt so the Russians will lose out in Syria. Time to move on.

Who says the US "lost out in Egypt"?

The notion that the US doesn't threaten the Russian because we haven't balls or bottle seems downright bizarre... why should we have any interest in threatening the Russians in the first place? They aren't an enemy or a threat, just another country with interests that sometimes diverge from ours. Threats are very rarely a useful method of conducting foreign relations, and refraining from threats is more about presence of common sense than absence of testicles.

[jcustis]

I'm a bit perplexed over the goings-on in Syria. Assad is supporting by the Shiite minority, but has been putting down a number of protests and open fighting through substantial force.

Is his military predominantly Shiite as well? If not, then any clues as to why Egypt changed so quietly compared to the northern neighbor?

The lack of independent reporting coming out of Syria is frustrating, as I haven't really had the time to dig deeply enough to find the nuggets that no doubt exist, but what is Assad telling his troops that is convincing them the protesters need to be handled at the end of a gun?

[davidbfpo]

Jon,

This slightly dated summary or Q&A by the BBC may help:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13374395

How is Syria different from Egypt or Libya?

There are several factors that complicate the crisis in Syria.

Mr Assad enjoys strong support within many segments of Syrian society, mostly among minorities, the middle class and the business elite.

There are fears of a civil war if President Assad should fall. Syria is made up of a precarious mix of confessions - 75% Sunni; 10% Christian, 3% Druze and 3% Shia (mostly Alawite). Even among those who want to see serious reforms, many would prefer to give President Assad time to implement them.
Unlike in Egypt, there is no daylight between the army and the regime. The armed forces are overwhelmingly made up of Alawites, so they too are in a fight to maintain their power and privilege. While there have been reports of low-level defections, the military command appears solid.

To which I would add the regime is ruthless, to an extent we find hard to follow. This week I watched some footage of a protest being broken up, mainly by plain-clothed men armed with clubs and knives.

[ganulv]

[W]hat is Assad telling his troops that is convincing them the protesters need to be handled at the end of a gun?

I’m not an expert on the region but my understanding is that there may be two things going on. The first is an armed insurgency presumably organized along sectarian lines (i.e., they are Sunni) and the second is civil unrest in opposition to a corrupt and brutal bureaucracy. I would assume Assad—or more likely his brother—is talking to his troops a lot about the former and much less about the latter.

Also worth keeping in mind is the fact that about 10% of the Syrian population is Kurdish (most of whom are Sunni).

While some people don’t care for his politics Robert Fisk has spent a long career on the ground in the region.

[jcustis]

I think much of what I have difficulty reconciling are the measures taken against what appear to be protests. I guess even whispers and fears of a gun (and certainly true presence of one) are enough to make poor troops open fire.

[ganulv]

I think much of what I have difficulty reconciling are the measures taken against what appear to be protests. I guess even whispers and fears of a gun (and certainly true presence of one) are enough to make poor troops open fire.

Given the conduct of Syrian troops in 1982 in Hama and during the Syrian occupation of Lebanon I have to think poor troops are only part of the story. Last week the BBC ran an (unconfirmed, of course) report that had the Syrian military involved in crop destruction.

I once heard someone (Aaron Sheenan-Dean, I think, in regards to Confederate soldiers’ motivations during the waning portion of the Civil War) say words to the effect that when someone is convinced that the very existence of their society is in question then his or her conception of appropriate behavior tends to change drastically. There is justifiable reason to worry that a Damascus in 2012 without Assad might look something like Baghdad in 2006 without Saddam Hussein. I don’t think that justifies shooting into crowds of civilian protesters or that there aren’t other factors at work in such shootings but it is my guess that anxieties about that kind of scenario are very much on the minds of the members of the Syrian military right now.

[AdamG]

Turkey has agreed that NATO can turn its airbase in Turkey into a base for ground operations into Syria. The country will become the main base in the area for the US-led military alliance’s ground forces.

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=799355