Syria: a civil war (closed)

[davidbfpo]

I am sure there was a mention on BBC Radio 4 today that one option was the creation of a 'safe haven' across the Turkish-Syrian border. No-one sensible expects that today, simply as Syria will not agree.

As for grander schemes, as the previous post reported, they are IMHO rubbish. There is currently much diplomatic posturing, in the knowledge there are very few realistic options to curtail Syrian state action.

[ganulv]

this globalpost piece is the closest to real coverage of the Syrian situation from inside the country I have seen so far.

[JMA]

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.

Has this been verified as accurate?

[Rex Brynen]

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.

Exactly right--and there have also been quite a few cases of Syrian troops being fired upon. Consequently the Syrian reaction is an oscillating case of much-more-softly-than-Hama, and disorganized/fearful brutality.

On top of that, the regimes knows that 1) if it is too brutal, Sunni officers and personnel might start to defect, 2) if it isn't brutal enough, the protests spread.

[davidbfpo]

An opinion piece, which is sub-titled:

The popular uprisings in the Arab world are a great disaster for a radical camp led by Syria-Iran and long indulged by media such as al-Jazeera. A great opportunity follows..

Particularly interesting the comments on Al-Jazeera.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/hazem-s...s-end-to-dogma

[Rex Brynen]

Particularly interesting the comments on Al-Jazeera.

al-Jazeera is linked to Qatari foreign policy? I'm shocked, shocked!

[davidbfpo]

Some insight from a British journalist and former politician, Matthew Parris, best known as a parliamentary and social sketch writer; which opens with:

..my own bent has been to ask if revolts in North Africa and now Syria are really just cries of despair from an increasingly educated and in-touch generation of (mostly) young and (often) unemployed Arab men, at the failure of their prospects to keep pace with their hopes — it being easiest to blame the despotism or dysfunction of their governments for what is at root economic failure.

..they feel humiliated for their countrymen and country, in the face of a police state so unlikeable that even its beneficiaries (he says) cannot like it.

He adds that to Arabs he knows, the sight of Arab blood being spilt at the hands of other Arabs is very shameful; and victimhood, even by proxy, has helped fuel indignation. There is also (he says) something ‘attractive’ (his word) to some of his students in the picture of young Arab men standing up to authority and force: heroism alone, almost regardless of cause...

Yes, based on one persons's first-hand knowledge of one group of youths in Syria.

Link:http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnist...t-anyway.thtml

[davidbfpo]

An IISS Strategic Comment, which ends with:

Meanwhile, the protest movement continues to gain momentum inside Syria, with nothing but the president's departure now likely to satisfy the opposition. With dissent within his country now too widespread for Assad to ignore, some analysts are hoping Syria's fast-degenerating economy will also prove a fatal weakness. In this context, the fact that protests have finally reached the country's second city and commercial hub, Aleppo, may be particularly significant. And how things now play out in Syria depends on whether Assad and his officials meeting growing dissent with ever-repressive force – or blink.

Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...ense-of-syria/

Following one link I found 'Syria Comment' a blogsite for a US academic on Syria:http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/

[davidbfpo]

Perhaps the most important development, however, was in Syria. In Damascus, we saw large protests in the center of the city, and security fired on the crowds, a sure sign that even the capital is starting to turn against the regime, slowly but steadily.

(My emphasis) In Hama, US Ambassador Robert Ford was described by the Syrian Interior Minister as meeting "with saboteurs in Hama ... who erected checkpoints, cut traffic and prevented citizens from going to work." However, he got a hero's welcome, and nearly 500,000 people peacefully took to the streets with few incidents of security cracking down on the city.

Taken from:http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/...st-friday.html

Alas no sourcs cited and a search found several sources.

Al-Jazeera has a very short report:http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/...ul-8-2011-2238

There is a NYT report with some more detail:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/wo...t/09syria.html

A DoS spokesperson added:

Ms. Nuland confirmed that Mr. Ford drove through the city center on Friday but decided not to stay so as “not to become the story himself” and left before the protests got under way.

Blake Hounshell, the managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, observed: The more I think about it, the more extraordinary Ford’s visit to Hama is. When was the last time a U.S. ambassador did something so bold?

Link, with YouTube clip:http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/201...an-protesters/

Note the French Ambassador was there too, apparently not a coordinated visit.

[Jedburgh]

ICG, 6 Jul 11: Popular Protest in North Africa and the Middle East (VI): The Syrian People’s Slow-motion Revolution

The Syrian uprising has defied conventional expectations and patterns established elsewhere in the region from the outset. It happened, first of all, and to many that in itself was surprising enough. The regime was not alone in believing in a form of Syrian exceptionalism that would shield it from serious popular unrest. Once the uprising began, it did not develop quickly, as in Egypt or Tunisia. Although it did not remain peaceful, it did not descend into a violent civil war, as in Libya, or sectarian affair, as in Bahrain. To this day, the outcome remains in doubt. Demonstrations have been growing in impressive fashion but have yet to attain critical mass. Regime support has been declining as the security services’ brutality has intensified, but many constituents still prefer the status quo to an uncertain and potentially chaotic future. What is clear, however, is the degree to which a wide array of social groups, many once pillars of the regime, have turned against it and how relations between state and society have been forever altered....

ICG, 13 Jul 11: Popular Protest in North Africa and the Middle East (VII): The Syrian Regime’s Slow-motion Suicide

Desperate to survive at all costs, Syria’s regime appears to be digging its grave. It did not have to be so. The protest movement is strong and getting stronger but yet to reach critical mass. Unlike toppled Arab leaders, President Bashar Assad enjoyed some genuine popularity. Many Syrians dread chaos and their nation’s fragmentation. But whatever opportunity the regime once possessed is being jeopardised by its actions. Brutal repression has overshadowed belated, half-hearted reform suggestions; Bashar has squandered credibility; his regime has lost much of the legitimacy derived from its foreign policy. The international community, largely from fear of the alternative to the status quo, waits and watches, eschewing for now direct involvement. That is the right policy, as there is little to gain and much to lose from a more interventionist approach, but not necessarily for the right reasons. The Syrian people have proved remarkably resistant to sectarian or divisive tendencies, defying regime prophecies of confessional strife and Islamisation. That does not guarantee a stable, democratic future. But is a good start that deserves recognition and support....

[Bill Moore]

The Syrian regime is killing more and more of their civilians and ignoring global protests towards their crimes against humanity, and our Secretary of State suggests economic sanctions? Maybe it is just me, but why do we always resort to this stale and ineffective tactic? Sanctions historically have almost always resulted in strengthening the regime being targeted and hurting their citizens. It also tends to strengthen the will of those being sanctioned. One would think that our diplomats could come up with more creative responses short of military options other than sanctions. Sanctions didn't remove Saddam, Castro, or anyone else from power that I'm aware of, nor did it influence their behavior in ways that supported our national interests. It seems to be that we feel compelled to do something, and since sanctions are relatively easy for us (even cowardly) we're sending a message to the world that the U.S. acted, and while it won't achieve anything other than creating more suffering for the people we tried to help, we acted.

[ganulv]

One would think that our diplomats could come up with more creative responses short of military options other than sanctions.

Probably.

Sanctions didn't remove Saddam, Castro, or anyone else from power that I'm aware of

South Africa may be the exception. Or it may not.

It seems […] we're sending a message to the world that the U.S. acted, and while it won't achieve anything other than creating more suffering for the people we tried to help, we acted.

I assume that’s more or less the thinking. My fingers are crossed that the response doesn’t change for the worse.

[Bob's World]

Sanctions work where the government must respond to the needs of its populace. Despots, kings and dictators don't miss many meals and don't care much when the people suffer.

Too often when we apply sanctions (that would certainly get the American people riled up and demanding the government to respond here), all we accomplish is a very real example for that target despot to use to validate the negative messages they put out to their people about the US. We make these men more powerful, while making their populaces more hateful of the US and our foreign policies.

Safe sanctions for democracies, they might work there.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob,

Sanctions work where the government must respond to the needs of its populace. Despots, kings and dictators don't miss many meals and don't care much when the people suffer.

Exactly, which is why recomending sanctions may be understandable if it came from a high school student who hasn't much worldly experience yet, but from our State Department?

ganulv, thanks for the links.

[Rex Brynen]

Sanctions work where the government must respond to the needs of its populace. Despots, kings and dictators don't miss many meals and don't care much when the people suffer.

Sanctions are also intended to sway:

1) Those who, while currently fence-sitting on the regime's side of the fence, can potentially be shifted to the other side. The Syrian Sunni business class (leaving aside those linked to the Assad family), for example, could easily go either way--and the most recent round of sanctions was explicitly designed to influence them.

2) Those who might be looking for an excuse to not obey orders. As it stands, the regime is already having trouble with this, as evidenced by its non-use of much of the Syrian military (because of shaky loyalties) as well as the replacement of some senior regional officials.

If there is anything that the last forty years of authoritarian transitions has taught us is that one should never treat the "regime" as it it were a single undifferentiated mass.

In addition, sanctions can send the signal of mounting international pressure on the regime--thereby affecting the assessment of future costs and benefits by protesters and others alike. Its for that reason that most Syrian human rights and opposition groups have been pressing hard for sanctions.

Finally, there aren't always better policy options available.

I'm not saying that sanctions will prove decisive, or even hugely important. However they almost certainly push things in the right direction in this particular case.

[Bill Moore]

Rex,

I have heard the State Department use the same logic for different countries and have yet to see it work. Excerpts of your comments and responses:

Sanctions are also intended to sway

I don't think any of us missed that the intent of the sanctions is to sway, but will they? Historically they haven't, and in a country like Syria I see no reason that they will.

Those who, while currently fence-sitting on the regime's side of the fence, can potentially be shifted to the other side. The Syrian Sunni business class (leaving aside those linked to the Assad family), for example, could easily go either way--and the most recent round of sanctions was explicitly designed to influence them.

The problem is that Assad is using force to oppress his people, so even if sanctions convinced the Sunni business class (those that don't realize that already) that Assad is bad man, just what the hell are they supposed to do? Any hostile action taken by them (hostile action includes vocal support for the protestors) could result in their ruin. Sanctions on the other hand will result in new business opportunities with those willing to violate them, and there are plently who are.

Those who might be looking for an excuse to not obey orders.

In my opinion this is an extreme reach in logic. If you're the military and your fellow soldiers are killing your fellow citizens based on orders from Assad and that isn't enough of an excuse to disobey orders, I doubt that sanctions imposed by an unpopular foreign country (that would be the U.S.) would further divide the people, soldiers, business men from their government. It may in fact unite some fence sitters to support the government based on perceived foreign interference.

Finally, there aren't always better policy options available

.

This may or may not be true, and I suspect we use sanctions for the reasons stated previously, it is a process we know how to implement and it creates the illusion of the USG taking decisive action.

they almost certainly push things in the right direction in this particular case

Perhaps, but they may also push Syria to have a closer relationship with Iran (if that is even possible), and it could open the doors to nations like China and others to make business deals due to the opportunities created by the sanctions. Additionally, they will most likely cause suffering among the people (unless sanctions are limited to weapons) and overtime the blame for their suffering will be shifting to the U.S..

Sometimes doing nothing is an appropriate course of action. We already half committed to the insurgents/rebels in Libya and now that appears to be going south in a bad way with the various rebel groups turning against one another. In Egypt we are seeing the rise of Islamists again (still not sure what it will mean in the long run), so before we start championing these causes we better have a good understanding of who we're jumping in bed with.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...0JJ_story.html

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday defended her department’s incremental response to the slayings of protesters in Syria, arguing that demands for the ouster of Syria’s president would accomplish little without the support of key allies in the region.

Agree, and it reinforces a point I made previously that when we pursue isolationist trade policies it does more harm to us than to the country we're trying to influence. We lose both business opportunities and leverage. Furthermore, the fact is that our businesses can more have more influence on the nation than any Embassy and assorted diplomats, because our businesses will have a direct impact on their lives. We missed an opportunity to engage in business in Cuba years ago, and are still slow rolling business efforts to appease a small group of angry Cubans exiles in Florida.

Clinton also sought to portray the Obama administration’s policies in Syria and Libya as examples of “smart power,” an approach that she said emphasizes collective action and international consensus over unilateral solutions that rely disproportionately on U.S. troops and treasure.

Maybe I'm a hopeless iconoclast, but I had to laugh at this one. Now we know that smart power is the hopelessness associated with multinational consensus. Another way to pretend to take action, while developing a vanguard of a thousand excuses on why you can't.

[Dayuhan]

Now we know that smart power is the hopelessness associated with multinational consensus. Another way to pretend to take action, while developing a vanguard of a thousand excuses on why you can't.

Does anyone have a practical, realistic proposal for taking action? If so, what is it?

[Bob's World]

Well, If Clinton is serious, she should be sitting in Assad's office armed with a comprehensive and consistent US strategy for approaching the Middle East in the current era; as well as a focused plan for dealing with Arab Spring as it continues to unfold across the region. She should also have a comprehensive package of carrots and sticks to employ in the course of her conversation. She should refrain from making shoulder fired verbal assaults at Assad in the media and keep statements to a sophisticated planned message theme that addresses this (so far as I know, non-existent) overall US strategy and scheme.

On Rex's point that there may be some fence sitters who could be swayed by sanctions, then I suggest that only go after those fence sitters in that fashion if one can narrowly tailor a sanction, like a laser or GPS guided munition, to hit them. That may be in their personal bank accounts overseas, perhaps. Freezing Swiss and UAE accounts is unlikely to hurt the average Syrian much. Something along those lines.

And as always, whatever we do to Syria we need to be equally prepared to do in Saudi Arabia when that time comes (and it will come) as well.

[Dayuhan]

She should also have a comprehensive package of carrots and sticks to employ in the course of her conversation.

What carrots and sticks would you suggest?