Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[davidbfpo]

A detailed WaPo article, with many links, that looks back to the early days of the Syrian Civil War 'Would arming Syria’s rebels have stopped the Islamic State?':http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...islamic-state/

It starts with:

Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton made news this weekend by suggesting that the rise of the Islamic State might have been prevented had the Obama administration moved to more aggressively arm Syrian rebels in 2012. Variants of this narrative have been repeated so often by so many different people in so many venues that it’s easy to forget how implausible this policy option really was.

(And ends with) Had the plan to arm Syria’s rebels been adopted back in 2012, the most likely scenario is that the war would still be raging and look much as it does today, except that the United States would be far more intimately and deeply involved. That’s a prospect that Clinton frankly acknowledged during her interview, but that somehow didn’t make it into the headline. As catastrophic as Syria’s war has been, and as alarming as the Islamic State has become, there has never been a plausible case to be made that more U.S. arms for Syrian rebels would have meaningfully altered their path.

[CrowBat]

As catastrophic as Syria’s war has been, and as alarming as the Islamic State has become, there has never been a plausible case to be made that more U.S. arms for Syrian rebels would have meaningfully altered their path.

Yeah, because all the plausible cases were declared for non-plausible....

But never mind: keep on trying everything else - before you do the right thing.

[CrowBat]

Here some more food for thoughts of all those considering 'Assad the lesser evil' in Syria (in comparison to the ISIS):

Assad Policies Aided Rise of Islamic State Militant Group

The Islamic State... gained momentum early on from a calculated decision by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to go easy on it, according to people close to the regime.

Earlier in the three-year-old Syrian uprising, Mr. Assad decided to mostly avoid fighting the Islamic State to enable it to cannibalize the more secular rebel group...

...which is precisely what I'm 'implying' since longer.

Perhaps some there in the DC might think twice before coming to the idea to 'cooperate' with Assadists now.

[carl]

Here some more food for thoughts of all those considering 'Assad the lesser evil' in Syria (in comparison to the ISIS):

Assad Policies Aided Rise of Islamic State Militant Group


...which is precisely what I'm 'implying' since longer.

Perhaps some there in the DC might think twice before coming to the idea to 'cooperate' with Assadists now.

One of the unpleasant things to consider is the DC genii may be more comfortable and therefore more willing to deal with an 'established' government, no matter how bad, than a bunch of ragamuffin rebels. The inside the beltway types wouldn't know exactly what to make of people who were grocers and doctors and demonstrably brave but without the proper credentials and discernible hierarchy. I think quite within the realm of probability they would rather stay within their bureaucratic comfort zone with the devil's representatives than venture out of that zone in the company of flawed angels.

[Bill Moore]

One of the unpleasant things to consider is the DC genii may be more comfortable and therefore more willing to deal with an 'established' government, no matter how bad, than a bunch of ragamuffin rebels. The inside the beltway types wouldn't know exactly what to make of people who were grocers and doctors and demonstrably brave but without the proper credentials and discernible hierarchy. I think quite within the realm of probability they would rather stay within their bureaucratic comfort zone with the devil's representatives than venture out of that zone in the company of flawed angels.

Obviously true, but it may also be true that since there are several hundred different groups fighting Assad in Syria, that the most rational decision is to deal with the government?

[carl]

Obviously true, but it may also be true that since there are several hundred different groups fighting Assad in Syria, that the most rational decision is to deal with the government?

No, the easiest thing to do is deal with the government. If there are lots of groups there are lots more chances you can find some pretty good people to work with. But it would take work, imagination, insight, Arabic language skills and it would be dangerous and uncertain.

It would be the most rational choice if your unstated objective was to make your life and career progression easier. But if your actual objective was the good of the USA and you took the easy route, you would have to admit to yourself that you weren't worth much.

[Bill Moore]

Think there is more going on than you're giving our policy wonks credit for.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/223971.htm

However, based on our experience on the ground over the past year, we have been refocusing our activity. Over the past few months the State Department and USAID have stepped up efforts to channel resources directly to local and provincial governments and civil society groups, as well as the SOC.

Our focus is increasingly on ways to help communities maintain basic security, keep the lights on, provide water, food and basic medical care – staving off the advances of extremist groups who seek to exploit peoples’ desperation. It allows these localities to maintain the basic public institutions that will be so critical in rebuilding a post-Asad Syria.

In towns and cities under opposition control, we are beginning to provide cash grants to pay local law enforcement and teachers. We continue to train local councils and civil society organizations in administration and local governance. And we are providing equipment and supplies to help them, including heavy equipment such as generators, cranes, trucks, and ambulances. In one major city, for example, we have helped reopen 17 schools serving 9,300 students. In another major city, we funded the refurbishment of 60 police stations and are providing non-lethal equipment and basic stipends to 1,300 policemen, who are struggling to maintain order. Paying stipends not only helps keep these people on the job, but it also helps deprive the extremist groups of the chance to fill the vacuum themselves.

Make no mistake: this is extremely difficult work and nobody is saying that this assistance will turn the tide against what remains an extremely serious and deteriorating situation. As we learned in Iraq – even with 160,000 American troops, ten years of effort, tens of thousands of schools refurbished, and hundreds of millions of dollars spent – it takes generations to restore stability in societies wrecked by decades of dictatorship and civil wars.

There are several talks going with numerous groups, but I suspect if we're interested in crushing ISIL we may share a limited and common objective with Assad. The world isn't black and white, and I know you know that. I'm actually surprised by how much we are doing, and then if you consider what other countries from the region and Europe are doing there are plenty of helping and non-helping hands all working quietly to pursue their objectives.

What exactly do you think we need to do at this point?

[Dayuhan]

No, the easiest thing to do is deal with the government. If there are lots of groups there are lots more chances you can find some pretty good people to work with. But it would take work, imagination, insight, Arabic language skills and it would be dangerous and uncertain.

Is it certain that we need to "work with" someone in Syria? Getting involved in a proxy war is a complicated and risky business... we need to have clear and specific goals and we'd need a plan B if our chosen proxy is unable to do the job. Do we have either?

[Bill Moore]

No, the easiest thing to do is deal with the government. If there are lots of groups there are lots more chances you can find some pretty good people to work with. But it would take work, imagination, insight, Arabic language skills and it would be dangerous and uncertain.

It would be the most rational choice if your unstated objective was to make your life and career progression easier. But if your actual objective was the good of the USA and you took the easy route, you would have to admit to yourself that you weren't worth much.

There are two assumptions in your argument, one is flat out wrong. First you're logic implies the U.S. not doing anything (wrong, we did things, so you obviously meant not enough) is why Syria ended up the way it is. Syria ended the way it is due to a host of local and regional factors that had nothing to do with the U.S.. When you embrace American Hubris views, then of course you view the world as though we're the center of all, and we are the cause and effect of all, but that has little to do with reality.

The other assumption is if we intervened to a greater extent there would be a different outcome. That may or may not be true. If we killed Assad and greatly neutered his military it is probable his regime would have fallen, but we have no clue what would have happened after that, but we sure as heck would own the problem at that point, and to what end?

But if your actual objective was the good of the USA and you took the easy route, you would have to admit to yourself that you weren't worth much.

This argument assumes that getting the U.S. involved in a regional quagmire would somehow be in our interest? Why isn't it in our interest to see both of our adversaries (Sunni extremists and Iran and their proxies) fight one another, and for once strain their economies instead of ours? Why can't we wait until there is an opportunity to actually achieve something that is in our interests? Removing Malaki would be one example, the situation was managed to great effect in that aspect, but who knows what the new government will do.

Since I'm not sure of the extent of support we're providing and to whom, I can't make an argument on whether we need to increase it our not, but I haven't see a good argument yet on why we should intervene, or should have, intervened, militarily in Syria. Everyone is making a lot of wild guesses made on sensational news reporting instead of facts, because the facts are not available the public.

We had our so called expert on Syria, and his/her expertise was due to tweeting back and forth to "one" person he/she knew in Syria. The first casualty of any conflict is the truth, but I would hope most people who visit SWJ have enough experience to realize that and try to look beyond the headlines.

In the end those clamoring for U.S. military involvement should provide a theory of change and identify a condition that we can feasibly obtain. None provided to date other than criticism for the U.S. policy wonks, and trust me I like to criticize them as much as any body else, but at the end of the day if we can't provide a sound strategy that is our interest, not one that merely satisfies our emotional craving to do something, then recognize the complaints for they really are, just background noise from frustrated people.

[CrowBat]

One of the unpleasant things to consider is the DC genii may be more comfortable and therefore more willing to deal with an 'established' government, no matter how bad, than a bunch of ragamuffin rebels.

Theoretically, you're right.

In practice, the actual problem is that there is an immense (and growing) gap between what the intel is recommending and what the politics (i.e. political decision-makers) is doing.

...I think quite within the realm of probability they would rather stay within their bureaucratic comfort zone with the devil's representatives than venture out of that zone in the company of flawed angels.

And I 'think' Obama (and all sorts of his supporters) is badly in need of an excuse for doing nothing at all - simply because he 'knows better'.

And what comes out of doing nothing... well, should a better example appear in the time of my life than this ISIS affair, I'll eat my hat.

[Dayuhan]

In practice, the actual problem is that there is an immense (and growing) gap between what the intel is recommending and what the politics (i.e. political decision-makers) is doing.

Intel does not in itself recommend anything. It's information. It's one input into recommendations and decisions. I don't think any of us have access to the intel or the decision making process, and if we did we wouldn't be talking about it.

And I 'think' Obama (and all sorts of his supporters) is badly in need of an excuse for doing nothing at all - simply because he 'knows better'.

And what comes out of doing nothing... well, should a better example appear in the time of my life than this ISIS affair, I'll eat my hat.

As the Mark Lynch piece that David linked to points out:

Had the plan to arm Syria’s rebels been adopted back in 2012, the most likely scenario is that the war would still be raging and look much as it does today, except that the United States would be far more intimately and deeply involved... As catastrophic as Syria’s war has been, and as alarming as the Islamic State has become, there has never been a plausible case to be made that more U.S. arms for Syrian rebels would have meaningfully altered their path.

Did you actually read it? It's worth a look, even (especially) if you don't agree.