Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[TheCurmudgeon]

I'm not talking about legitimacy in the abstract, or about our perception of legitimacy, but of domestic perceptions of legitimacy.

In countries where colonial occupiers or hated dictators have to be expelled by force, those who did the expelling typically earned a significant perception of legitimacy simply by expelling the colonial power or hated dictator. In many cases those governments did perfectly awful things: taking power through armed struggle often means that the most ruthless and aggressive people in the movement end up running it. The awfulness of what those governments did when they gained power does not change the reality that success against an occupying colonial power or hated dictator does typically - at least initially - earn a movement a significant degree of perceived legitimacy.

I don't think successfully throwing out a colonial regime earns you legitimacy. In the initial phase of the fight it will earn you an allegiance in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way, but that is a far cry from legitimacy, as the events after the fall of the colonial regime often prove. Once the common enemy is gone then the true beliefs and their associated loyalties and legitimacy show themselves. By then, it is often too late.

What it can earn you is respect: the kind of respect born out of fear. That can be turned into power, but it is still not legitimacy. We had the power after the fall of Saddam but we were not going to use it as some others (i.e. Ho) would to consolidate their governments. As you say, no government (even, or perhaps especially, the U.S.) garners legitimacy from 100% of its population. Of course, it is easier to up your legitimacy numbers if you simply kill off those people who don't see you as legitimate - a method you are unlikely to see in the new, updated 5-34.

Similarly, those who supported the colonial power typically earn a degree of illegitimacy, even if they are in many ways more able to run the country.

This just goes to prove that efficiency does not create legitimacy, despite what some of our current COIN ideas tend to espouse.

[davidbfpo]

A few updates, some of uncertain veracity, others from reliable sources.

Via Twitter a purported film of Chechen fighters in Syria, that is on You Tube. IIRC reports of Chechen fighters outside the Caucasus have appeared before, who have reputation for fighting almost of mythological status. Links:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsYXy_0t0Qc and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-IIC...e_gdata_player

There are small Chechen communities in Jordan and Syria - so probably not from the Caucasus.

Syria's regime have used Scud SSM before, it now appears a number have been fired at rebel-held districts of Aleppo:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21563669

Finally there is a Bruce Reidel commentary:http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...offensive.html

[TheCurmudgeon]

I don't think successfully throwing out a colonial regime earns you legitimacy. In the initial phase of the fight it will earn you an allegiance in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way, but that is a far cry from legitimacy, as the events after the fall of the colonial regime often prove. Once the common enemy is gone then the true beliefs and their associated loyalties and legitimacy show themselves. By then, it is often too late.

An example from Syria

A recent confrontation between liberal protesters and Islamists in the northwestern Syrian city of Saraqeb, which was caught on video, set off a heated online debate. These weekly demonstrations have become a battle of symbols. Most demonstrators carry the green, red, black and white flag that was adopted by the secular opposition in the early days of the revolt.
But these days, a black banner also flutters at Friday demonstrations. It represents Salafists who embrace an ultraconservative brand of Islam that is new in Syria.The chants and counterchants are telling: The secular liberals shout for unity, freedom and a civil state. Democracy is what they say they want.The Islamists turn up the volume with calls for religious rule. An Islamic state is what they demand.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/27/172989...re?ft=1&f=1001

The Islamists and the Secularist are fighting a common enemy, but they have two completely different concepts of what a legitimate government should consist of.

The basics of this cultural transition can be seen in almost all of the Arab Spring states as well as places like Thailand where royalists fight democracy advocates.(http://www.economist.com/node/15719095)

The history of each country adds unique flavors to these fights, but they are founded in human nature. They represent a transition from a belief in collective identity to individualistic identity. The use of force is only one tool, and one of limited "utility".

[davidbfpo]

From Jihadica:

Read in full, Shumukh’s “comprehensive strategy” for Syria presents an unmistakably grim prognostication for jihadism’s future in Syria—indeed a grim prognostication for Syria’s future in general. It is an attempt to think realistically about the challenges to true jihadi success in Syria in the coming months and years.

Link to a summary and a translation:http://www.jihadica.com/al-qaeda-adv...%9D-for-syria/

Interesting contrast with the AQIM document found in Timbucktu; see SWC thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...038#post145038

Also taking a pessimistic view on events in Syria is Professor Bruce Hoffman, in a short interview, which covers more than Syria:

Al Qaeda sees Syria generally and its unconventional weapons stockpiles in particular as offering the best chance for it to revive its waning fortunes and once again become as threatening and consequential as it appeared in the aftermath of the September 11th 2001 attacks. Indeed, I would argue that al Qaeda has pinned its faith and hopes to the demise of the Assad regime and, in turn, its acquisition of deadly weapons from that country’s vast unconventional weapons arsenal.

Link:http://www.middleeast-armscontrol.co...rorism-threat/

[TheCurmudgeon]

Three Russian warships anchored in Beirut en route to the port of Tartus in Syria, Sky News reported Friday.

According to the report, the ships carry hundreds of Russian soldiers as well as advanced missile systems.The reports have given no information so far regarding the ships’ intent.

Moscow has operated the naval facility at Tartus since signing an agreement with Damascus in 1971. Although it is merely a ship repair and refueling station with a limited military presence, it is the sole remaining Russian military base outside of the former Soviet Union.

In January, a flotilla of five Russian warships laden with hundreds of troops, headed toward Syria, as a show of force meant to deter Western armies from intervening in the war-torn nation, the London-based Sunday Times reported.

Previous reports cited Russian diplomats to the effect that the vessels were being put in place in order to evacuate thousands of Russians who still remained in Syria, if the situation in the country called for it.

However, a Russian intelligence source was quoted in the London Times as saying that the presence of over 300 marines on the ships was meant as a deterrent to keep countries hostile to the Bashar Assad regime — a key ally of the Kremlin — from landing special forces in the country.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/three-r...ed-for-syrian-

[davidbfpo]

The Russian 'gunboat diplomacy' is slightly odd. I cannot recall if the January 2013 flotilla actually docked in Syria, one assumes they left after enjoying the delights ashore.

This flotilla I suspect called at Beirut to take on fuel oil, supplies and water. If true that is not a good indicator of the supply situation @ Tartus / Latakia.

Having three hundred naval infantry aboard is 'meant as a deterrent'. Really? With no means of deploying ashore, apart from their own helicopters and trucks ashore. More like a large security detachment to secure the port if an evacuation of Russian nationals is required - long rumoured - but not reported to date.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I would think it is more likely that they are interested in a NEO operation and in maintaining security on their own instillation. I doubt 300 marines are going to deter anyone. It certainly isn't enough to keep Assad in power. But I do believe they are interested in maintaining the instillation with whomever comes out on top. I am curious how they plan on playing this out.

[Madhu]

Dr. Stephen Cohen on the John Batchelor show spoke about the Russian domestic situation and the anger many Russians felt at those stranded in various countries when the Soviet Union collapsed. The anger and unease stayed within the domestic psyche, apparently, but this is not an area I know much about. There is a Russian diaspora (some married locally) in the region?

How much of this is directed at the domestic situation and how much is in reaction to various international power plays (including unhappiness over NATO and regime change in Libya, worries over radicalism of the anti-Assad forces and its effects within Russia, etc?)

Link to podcast:

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcast.../22/third-hour

[JWing]

These photos from a militant website and reprinted by the Associated Press purport to show Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) fighters in Anbar who are involved in fighting in Syria. It has been widely reported that Islamists like AQI have been flocking to take part in the Syrian conflict. Al Nusra Front for example, is said to be a front group for Al Qaeda. There has recently been blowback in Iraq as well when a group of over 40 Syrian soldiers who had sought refuge in Iraq were ambushed and massacred in Anbar in March 2013. Shiite militias and the Kurdistan Regional Government have either sent forces to Syria or supported fighters there as well. Like the Iraq War involved regional powers and Islamist groups, the same thing is now happening in Syria as these pictures reveal.

http://www.musingsoniraq.blogspot.co...volved-in.html