Syria: a civil war (closed)

[JMA]

Dayuhan asked:

I am not technically minded, so hopefully Entropy will be along shortly to add his expertise - and anyone else of course.

IIRC previous posts and other analysts have stated that without suppressing enemy aid defences (SEAD) the 'no-fly zone' option was unwise, even if the Syrian system was rather old-style, Soviet-built it still could kill. Removing SEAD is a technical matter:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppres...y_Air_Defenses

Earlier in this crisis I was puzzled by the absence of an overt move of NATO AWACS to the region, based either in Turkey or the UK base on Cyprus, followed by a build-up of a capability to act. This would have been a diplomatic signal of concern and the possibility of being built-up to actual capability. Perhaps an Anglo-French-US carrier exercise too.

IMO the 'no-fly zone' could not be as suggested Aleppo and nearby, a quick look at the map suggests no easy boundaries; so we are left with a national 'no-fly' zone. Recalling the experience for many years with the two 'no-fly zones' in Iraq, they used a Parallel as the boundary, with regular overflights and occasional strikes on radar sites etc:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

Using Cyprus as a base, for NATO / US use, would pose a few issues, especially if Cyprus (not a NATO member, but in the EU) and or Turkey was none too keen. Nor should we overlook UK reluctance to do much more than diplomacy and "grandstanding".

A national 'no-fly zone' would require IMO access and support from Syria's neighbours. Lebanon made it quite clear even UN observers use of their airfield(s) was no-go; Iraq has its own reasons not to help and for Jordan, the consummate balancer, please don't ask.

Given the regional concerns over a possible Israeli / US strike on Iran, would any external SEAD campaign be a good thing, even AWACS activity could be challenged.

Quite quickly what appears to be an option gets more difficult and this may explain why it never gained traction.

David, in the context of the article and the predicted introduction of SAM man-packs there may be no need for a 'no-fly-zone'

Syrian Leader’s Arms Under Strain as Conflict Continues

[Dayuhan]

Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't. I read them from your post. What you wrote was this:

f the "rebels" had not received weapons the armed insurrection would not have gotten off the ground.

If the armed insurrection got off the ground before the external arms supply began, then that contention is clearly pretty questionable. It's also called into question by this quote from the article you cite:

Defections of government troops and seizures of armaments are also a growing problem. Rebels in Aleppo claim to have control of a total of 14 T-72 and T-55 tanks and many indirect-fire weapons, including artillery pieces as well as mortars.

“The tanks are driven by our members, and their specialty is driving tanks, that’s what they did before they defected,” said Bashir al-Haji, a Free Syrian Army commander in Aleppo.

and also:

the American government official said that there were indications that rebels had apparently captured more SA-7 missile tubes and batteries from Syrian government stocks.

Somehow I don't think the Saudis and Qataris are supplying tanks, and while we don't know how many of the weapons the rebels are using came from abroad and how many were internally sourced, there are certainly indications that the rebels have been able to source enough weapons internally to mount a credible armed insurrection.

but when an ex Peace Corps agricultural volunteer starts pontificating about stuff beyond his ken...

I don't see any connection between what any of us was doing 30+ years ago and what they know today. There are people on this site who were in high school 30 years ago. There are people here who weren't born 30 years ago. Are their comments necessarily invalid? Or only when you don't agree with them?

Access through Google to the web and online newspapers does not you into an expert on these matters on 20 minutes.

I'm not an expert. neither are you. You don't have to be an expert to determine that the FSA had gotten off the ground with armed insurrection well before any reports or even discussion of external arms supplies.

You are just guessing... you have no idea what you are talking about.

I doubt that you know more, or that anyone here is working from any source beyond public reporting.

Here is something for you to chew on:

Obama authorized covert support for Syrian rebels, sources say

So what? Nothing there we didn't already know. For example

Exactly what type of support the finding authorizes is also unclear. The Obama administration has ruled out arming the rebels for now, providing only nonlethal assistance, such as communications equipment...

The Obama administration has resisted arming the opposition

I gather that you disapprove of what has been done, but you still haven't provided a clue about what you think should have been done instead. I'm beginning to think you don't know, and that accusations of incompetence and failure are simply a knee-jerk reaction with no substance at all.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan asked:

I am not technically minded, so hopefully Entropy will be along shortly to add his expertise - and anyone else of course.

IIRC previous posts and other analysts have stated that without suppressing enemy aid defences (SEAD) the 'no-fly zone' option was unwise, even if the Syrian system was rather old-style, Soviet-built it still could kill. Removing SEAD is a technical matter:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppres...y_Air_Defenses

Earlier in this crisis I was puzzled by the absence of an overt move of NATO AWACS to the region, based either in Turkey or the UK base on Cyprus, followed by a build-up of a capability to act. This would have been a diplomatic signal of concern and the possibility of being built-up to actual capability. Perhaps an Anglo-French-US carrier exercise too.

IMO the 'no-fly zone' could not be as suggested Aleppo and nearby, a quick look at the map suggests no easy boundaries; so we are left with a national 'no-fly' zone. Recalling the experience for many years with the two 'no-fly zones' in Iraq, they used a Parallel as the boundary, with regular overflights and occasional strikes on radar sites etc:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

Using Cyprus as a base, for NATO / US use, would pose a few issues, especially if Cyprus (not a NATO member, but in the EU) and or Turkey was none too keen. Nor should we overlook UK reluctance to do much more than diplomacy and "grandstanding".

A national 'no-fly zone' would require IMO access and support from Syria's neighbours. Lebanon made it quite clear even UN observers use of their airfield(s) was no-go; Iraq has its own reasons not to help and for Jordan, the consummate balancer, please don't ask.

Given the regional concerns over a possible Israeli / US strike on Iran, would any external SEAD campaign be a good thing, even AWACS activity could be challenged.

All of that makes sense, though I'd still be interested in hearing what those who know the mechanics of these things have to say.

Quite quickly what appears to be an option gets more difficult and this may explain why it never gained traction.

That makes a great deal of sense as well, and seems an excellent reason to avoid anything beyond the most minimal involvement. It's easy to propose "solutions", but few stand up to examination.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Of course everyone involved has an agenda, or they wouldn't be involved. Not everyone's supplying arms, and even if they weren't, would that end the fighting? I suppose it might, if it led to Assad's forces slaughtering the opposition, but is that a desirable outcome?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't decry intervention and at the same time bemoan the slaughter that results from failing to intervene.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Given the regional concerns over a possible Israeli / US strike on Iran, would any external SEAD campaign be a good thing, even AWACS activity could be challenged.

Quite quickly what appears to be an option gets more difficult and this may explain why it never gained traction.

There was never any justification for a no-fly zone. Historically these were used to stop what was perceived as the misuse of military aircraft to kill non-combatants. In Syria the aircraft are being used to fight rebels.

[davidbfpo]

Curmudgeon stated just:

There was never any justification for a no-fly zone. Historically these were used to stop what was perceived as the misuse of military aircraft to kill non-combatants. In Syria the aircraft are being used to fight rebels.

To my limited knowledge there are three modern examples of a 'no-fly zone', most recently Libya (with other coercive options at play), further back in time Iraq (for a short time ground elements in the north) and former Yugoslavia (alongside UN peacekeeping and peace enforcement).

Not to overlook the serious mistake in Iraq, where IIRC helicopters were excluded, or was that the armistice agreement?

In Syria today I have m' doubts that both aircraft and helicopters can readily distinguish between non-combatants and rebels. Aircraft bombing etc in an urban area is unlikely to be accurate in an urban setting; although to be fair we have seen very little reporting of this happening.

[Dayuhan]

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't decry intervention and at the same time bemoan the slaughter that results from failing to intervene.

You can bemoan the slaughter and still accept that intervention probably wouldn't have reduced the slaughter, that there were no attractive options for intervention, and that no potential intervening party was or is willing to accept the cost and risk of trying to impose a political solution... even assuming that it is or would have been possible to impose a political solution.

I remain unconvinced that the violence can be blamed exclusively on outside parties who provided arms, since it appears that substantial quantities of what FSA is using are internally sourced. Even with the violence increasing it's not clear whether that's caused by an influx of arms from outside or by increased numbers of soldiers defecting with their weapons. The provision of arms by the Saudis and Qataris (likely others as well) is probably a factor, but is there any evidence to indicate that it's a decisive factor?

It still seems a bit of a moot point, as neither the US not any other party could have stopped the arms from getting in.

What, if anything, do you think should have been done that hasn't been done?

[TheCurmudgeon]

In Syria today I have m' doubts that both aircraft and helicopters can readily distinguish between non-combatants and rebels. Aircraft bombing etc in an urban area is unlikely to be accurate in an urban setting; although to be fair we have seen very little reporting of this happening.

That is the problem. It goes back to Russia and China's opposition to intervention based on sovereignty. If you are willing to intervene based on human rights violations in a sovereign nation then China and Russia might be in trouble.

Same goes for Aircraft. If you argue that military aircraft cannot be used to strike military targets where there might be collateral civilian deaths, you would have to deny any country the use of them in all but a very limited instances. Not the kind of precedence anyone wants to set.

[Dayuhan]

That is the problem. It goes back to Russia and China's opposition to intervention based on sovereignty. If you are willing to intervene based on human rights violations in a sovereign nation then China and Russia might be in trouble.

Russia and China opposed intervention in Iraq, but it still happened. The absence of intervention in Syria isn't because of Russian or Chinese opposition, it's because nobody with the capacity to intervene believes they have enough at stake to justify the cost and risk of intervention.

[Surferbeetle]

Stop, stop, stop ... For a one time PeaceCorps agricultural volunteer you are way out of your depth on this ...

No more than a soldier...

Complexity, the new word for the old concept of multi-dimensional problems which require multi-dimensional solutions....and 'foreign viewpoints'

Don't forget the multidimensional components of analytical tools such as ASCOPE, DIME, PMESII, SWOT, PESTLE (google search PESTLE diagram), etc.

[davidbfpo]

Abu M has a worthwhile comment on the real "heavy hitter" today in Syria, artillery, not helicopters and aircraft - which make better film footage:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...t-tyrants.html

It makes grim reading, even for a civilian who has read a lot:

If they are well supplied and reasonably competent, a mere battalion of artillery (eighteen guns) can keep a small city under fire indefinitely.....artillery is easier and cheaper to employ to the same effect without the international condemnation that would follow any use of chemicals.

The regime's use of artillery, including mortars, has reportedly been widespread, although no-one to date has reported - big caveat there is very limited access to Syria - that Bashir has followed his father's bombardment of Homs (in 1982?). A city that was being bombarded in July 2012.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Russia and China opposed intervention in Iraq, but it still happened. The absence of intervention in Syria isn't because of Russian or Chinese opposition, it's because nobody with the capacity to intervene believes they have enough at stake to justify the cost and risk of intervention.

Russia and China are the two hold-outs who block UN Security Council resolutions to act in Syria. We had and existing UN mandate for Iraq.

The 1991 Gulf War never fully ended, as there was no armistice formally ending the war. As a result relations between the United States, the United Nations, and Iraq remained strained, although Saddam Hussein issued formal statements renouncing his invasion of Kuwait and made reparations payments for Kuwait. The U.S. and the United Nations maintained a policy of “containment” towards Iraq, which involved economic sanctions, Iraqi no-fly zones enforced by the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and ongoing inspections of Iraqi weapons programs.[3] In 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 demanding that Iraq "comply with its disarmament obligations" and allow weapons inspections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationa...War_Resolution

I believe that "unanimously" means they voted for it (or at least abstained).

[Ken White]

However,it has little to no applicability to what Dayuhan wrote. They did object and both provided aid to Saddam. Their current intransigence in public utterances and at the UN has little bearing on what other nations may do in Syria.

[Wyatt]

Russia and China may have a fear of HR being a precedent for intervention but its not something that puts them at risk imo. Sovereignty of the weak gets violated because its easy and they can do little to nothing to resist. the strength of your sovereignty seems only to rest on your power to resist.

If syria gave word governments pause, china and russia ought to sleep well. After all, we will probably just buy more Iphones and "like" the campaigns to end slave labor on Facebook because then we are doing something

[JMA]

However,it has little to no applicability to what Dayuhan wrote. They did object and both provided aid to Saddam. Their current intransigence in public utterances and at the UN has little bearing on what other nations may do in Syria.

Don't buy that. Think 'precedent'.

[JMA]

Russia and China may have a fear of HR being a precedent for intervention but its not something that puts them at risk imo.

IMHO too.

Sovereignty of the weak gets violated because its easy and they can do little to nothing to resist. the strength of your sovereignty seems only to rest on your power to resist.

The validity of a claim to sovereignty must be challenged when no democratically elected government exists.

[JMA]

Russia and China opposed intervention in Iraq, but it still happened. The absence of intervention in Syria isn't because of Russian or Chinese opposition, it's because nobody with the capacity to intervene believes they have enough at stake to justify the cost and risk of intervention.

Amazing... opinion stated as if fact.

[JMA]

I believe that "unanimously" means they voted for it (or at least abstained).

From:

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

[TheCurmudgeon]

However,it has little to no applicability to what Dayuhan wrote. They did object and both provided aid to Saddam. Their current intransigence in public utterances and at the UN has little bearing on what other nations may do in Syria.

If there was a UN resolution that authorized force I would venture to say that the US along with NATO would provide assets including troops. The UN is not irrelevant and none of the major players are going to act without at least an arguable pretext of a legal justification. The US had that in Iraq. I don't see Iraq as setting any precedent that can be applied to Syria.

What independent actions other nations take without legal justification is, or should be, part of the consideration that goes into the debate at the UN.

To be honest, I am not sure what point Dayuhan is trying to make.

[TheCurmudgeon]

If this is true I wonder how the Iranian's will respond?

Syrian rebels claimed they assassinated an Iranian diplomat in Damascus as war continues in the city of Aleppo. The Egyptian Al Arabiya website reported the assassination, which it said could not be confirmed. No details were available.

Rebels Say Iranian Diplomat Assassinated in Syria