Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[AdamG]

(Reuters) - The United States and its allies are discussing a worst-case scenario that could require tens of thousands of ground troops to go into Syria to secure chemical and biological weapons sites following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad's government, according to U.S. and diplomatic officials.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87G02420120817

[davidbfpo]

I cannot see how an external intervention to safeguard the Syrian state's stockpiles of chemical and other weapons can be separated from the wider context.

Perhaps an Arab League & UN intervention is an option for such a single purpose intervention. Finding willing participants will be a challenge and from memory the UN has found it hard to get competent military contingents, let alone move fast.

There are historical, regional examples when Western nations with small UN peacekeeping contingents moved quickly to intervene on agreed ceasefire lines when local and international agreement was present - that time is past (Canada & Scandinavian forces IIRC).

The most capable regional military power, Israel, has been very quiet on a post-Assad Syria and currently is reported as more concerned with the "far enemy" Iran.

[Bill Moore]

I cannot see how an external intervention to safeguard the Syrian state's stockpiles of chemical and other weapons can be separated from the wider context.

Sounds more like an excuse to justify force structure. Deploying thousands of troops will most likely be ineffective, while a much less expensive and probably more effective method would be for our intelligence assets to start making deals for the powers that be and will be in Syria (pay offs and other deals) to secure the chemical and alleged biological weapons. I agree if we make WMD the issue while turning a blind eye to the overall context we're going to make bigger mess that will undermine our interests far more than a few chemical weapons.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am curious if anyone thinks that the US, Britain, and France could back out of the corner that they have painted themselves into and support, or at least not violently oppose, Assad remaining in power.

Or do our interests in remaining closely tied to the Saudis and contra to anything Iranian trump any interest we actually have in Syria.

[Rex Brynen]

I am curious if anyone thinks that the US, Britain, and France could back out of the corner that they have painted themselves into and support, or at least not violently oppose, Assad remaining in power.

I don't think any of the three feel they are in a corner. The almost universal consensus is that Asad is going down. Western countries are happy not to be in the driver's seat on this one (or be left responsible for the post-Asad reconstruction), and will let the Saudis, Qataris, and Turks do the not-so-covert arming of the opposition.

Sure, policymakers wish it would happen faster, worry about spillover and blowback (arms, radical jihadists), and worry about CW stockpiles. Generally, however, I think the view is that this will prove to be a gain in the end, and produce a Syria that will (eventually) be more friendly to the West and more responsive to its population than the Ba'thist dictatorship was.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I don't think any of the three feel they are in a corner. The almost universal consensus is that Asad is going down.

Perhaps among the Western powers. I don't think that is as inevitable as they would like to believe.

Sure, policymakers wish it would happen faster, worry about spillover and blowback (arms, radical jihadists), and worry about CW stockpiles. Generally, however, I think the view is that this will prove to be a gain in the end, and produce a Syria that will (eventually) be more friendly to the West and more responsive to its population than the Ba'thist dictatorship was.

I am not so confident that the result will be a better Syria, or even a better Middle East. Anyone interested in getting involved here is doing it based on their own interests not those of the Syrians (us included). Assad may have been a dictator but he kept a lid on things. I am not positive that letting those existing hatreds fed by outside interests is a better path.

[Dayuhan]

Perhaps among the Western powers. I don't think that is as inevitable as they would like to believe.

Possibly not, but I don't see that as a reason to try to stop him from falling. He'd be a first-class liability to anyone who intervened on his side, IMO.

I am not so confident that the result will be a better Syria, or even a better Middle East.

I'm also not that confident of those things... but again, it's happening and we're not going to un-happen it. Most likely Syria and the Middle East will be neither better nor worse, just different, with different opportunities and threats. What the parties involved do with and about those threats and opportunities will define whether things go better or worse.

Anyone interested in getting involved here is doing it based on their own interests not those of the Syrians (us included).

This of course is true, but it might be added that those who are not interested in getting involved are also acting according to their own perceived interests. There seems to be a pretty general disinterest in getting involved in any way beyond peripheral engagement with minimal commitment, suggesting that most parties do not see commitment as compatible with their interests.

Of course there are risks involved in letting things play out and dealing with whatever emerges, but there is no risk-free course of action, and I can see why decision makers would think that course of action presents less risk than any commitment to trying to direct the outcome.

Assad may have been a dictator but he kept a lid on things. I am not positive that letting those existing hatreds fed by outside interests is a better path.

A better path than what? Assad is clearly no longer able to keep a lid on things, and I see no point in trying to restore his ability to keep a lid on things... even in the unlikely event that we could do that, why would we want to? Not like he was ever any friend of ours.

It's not always up to us to dictate outcomes, and trying to dictate outcomes can get us into an epic load of mess.

[Rex Brynen]

Sounds more like an excuse to justify force structure. Deploying thousands of troops will most likely be ineffective, while a much less expensive and probably more effective method would be for our intelligence assets to start making deals for the powers that be and will be in Syria (pay offs and other deals) to secure the chemical and alleged biological weapons. I agree if we make WMD the issue while turning a blind eye to the overall context we're going to make bigger mess that will undermine our interests far more than a few chemical weapons.

It is a lot more than a few, covert deals aren't really possible, and the concern is genuine (even if one feels it is misplaced). I don't think massive ground intervention is a terribly likely outcome, however.