Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Bill Moore]

This is probably the best analysis of the Syrian situation that I have read this year: Is this the end of Sykes-Picot?

It ties in a number of threads that I have picked up from other informed commentators.

I do wonder why we insist on trying to maintain the Sykes-Picot boundaries. Historically boundaries have shown a lot of flexibility.

Thanks for posting, this is an excellent article. This could be the beginning of the end for Sykes-Picot boundaries, but I suspect there are a lot of powers that find these borders useful and will fight to maintain them. Cockburn captures it well with the following, which is why predictions in this situation are at best a wild guess.

It’s hard to imagine a real agreement being reached when there are so many players with conflicting interests. Five distinct conflicts have become tangled together in Syria: a popular uprising against a dictatorship which is also a sectarian battle between Sunnis and the Alawite sect; a regional struggle between Shia and Sunni which is also a decades-old conflict between an Iranian-led grouping and Iran’s traditional enemies, notably the US and Saudi Arabia. Finally, at another level, there is a reborn Cold War confrontation: Russia and China v. the West. The conflict is full of unexpected and absurd contradictions, such as a purportedly democratic and secular Syrian opposition being funded by the absolute monarchies of the Gulf who are also fundamentalist Sunnis.

[davidbfpo]

A report in Le Monde, by two French journalists embedded with opposition fighters, which reports repeated use of chemical weapons by the Bashar al-Assad regime:http://mobile.lemonde.fr/proche-orie...7708_3218.html

[Bill Moore]

The proxy war in Syria is expanding rapidly and it may have passed the point that the Syrian government or Free Syrian Army will determine the outcome of the conflict in Syria, but both sides will merely become pawns for other actors that include, but is not limited to: Iran, Russia, Lebanese Hezbollah, the EU, U.S., a number of Arab States and Al-Qaeda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22688894

Russian arms 'to deter foreign intervention in Syria'

Russia says it will go ahead with deliveries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, and that the arms will help deter foreign intervention.

On Monday, the EU said member states would be able to decide their own policy on sending arms to Syria, after foreign ministers were unable to reach the unanimous decision required to extend the current arms embargo past Saturday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...a47_story.html

Syrian rebels threaten Hezbollah as sectarian conflict intensifies

The shooting of three Lebanese soldiers Tuesday at a checkpoint near the Syrian border — decried by Lebanese President Michel Suleiman as an attempt to “stir up strife” — underscored the worsening instability in the fragile nation.

Politically polarized, Lebanon has attempted to pursue a policy of “disassociation” with the two-year-old uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. But that facade is now in tatters: Ministers with alliances to Damascus have traveled to meet Assad, while others have publicly supported the opposition.

When Hezbollah, which wields significant control over the country’s weak caretaker government, openly admitted sending fighters to Syria on Saturday and pledged to back Assad to the hilt, it marked the end of any pretense of neutrality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...2a7_story.html

Iraqi Shiites fight for Syrian government

The Iraqi fighters in the video shoulder assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades as they walk down a highway lined with cypress trees. Grinning, some hold up cellphones and camcorders to capture the moment — the aftermath of a victorious battle to secure the Aleppo airport from Syrian rebels who had attempted to take it.

The role of Iraqi Shiite fighters in Syria raises questions about the possible complicity of the Iraqi government, which U.S. officials have recently criticized for allowing Iran to use Iraqi airspace for flights that allegedly transport weapons, troops and supplies to the Assad government.

But Iraqi officials have warned repeatedly that Assad’s fall would spell disaster for Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told the Associated Press in February that a rebel victory in Syria would revive Iraq’s sectarian war.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affa...et-with-rebels

McCain meets with rebel leaders in Syria

According to the Daily Beast, which first reported the visit, McCain met with Gen. Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, and spent a few hours in the country after entering through Turkey.

Last week, however, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a bill to arm the Syrian opposition, a bipartisan rebuke to the White House

Other reports of unknown credibility claimed Sen McCain promised to push for U.S. support for the rebels.

This is already a quasi-World War, but with the potential to rapidly escalate into a regional World War involving a number of states and non-state actors. I don't know what good will become of U.S. intervention, but it appears we're on that road despite our regional ally(?) Iraq telling us a rebel victory would result in a new civil war in Iraq (as though that isn't materializing already).

[Bill Moore]

Worth considering

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/opinion/skinner-syria

Before taking on Syria, U.S. should heed lesson of the past

But in Weinberger's view, Lebanon was the wrong fight for the United States. In a speech on November 28, 1984, he articulated his six principles for future U.S. military engagements:

(1) There should be no commitment of U.S. forces abroad unless there is a clear and vital interest for the United States or its allies; (2) Combat, if agreed upon, should be undertaken with the intention of military victory, using whatever forces and resources are needed to achieve that goal; (3) Political and military objectives must be clearly defined before entering a conflict; (4) The relationship between military means and diplomatic, military, and political objectives "must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary," not just established at the beginning of the military engagement; (5) No battle is worth fighting or will be successful without "reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people" and Congress; and (6) The commitment of U.S. troops to a conflict should be an act of last resort.

The Reagan administration had approved Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and although initially welcomed by many Muslims in Lebanon the United States came to be seen as too pro-Israel, pro-Christian, and anti-Muslim. U.S. forces' unintentional shelling of civilians did not help matters.

Furthermore, the re-entry of the MFN was not accompanied by a serious understanding of strategy, objectives and the relationship between them. So President Reagan decided to withdraw U.S. forces from what would likely become a major military quagmire for the United States, instead of a multinational peacekeeping operation.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I find that list self serving, particularly the following:

(2) Combat, if agreed upon, should be undertaken with the intention of military victory, using whatever forces and resources are needed to achieve that goal; (3) Political and military objectives must be clearly defined before entering a conflict; (4) The relationship between military means and diplomatic, military, and political objectives "must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary," not just established at the beginning of the military engagement

(2) is in direct conflict with (3) and (4) and seems to stand in violation of the idea os using military force in a limited manner to deter further agression, a perfectly reasonable use of the military. Military victory may be independent of political objectives. In addition, if you begin a fight with the intent of finishing it that stands in contradition to the idea of reassessing the situation and adjusting the means you use to achieve your goal.

While it seems like a platatude that you never start a military fight without the intent of military victory, I think it is better to say that you should never start a military action without the realization that you may have to take it to its natrual conclusion.

[davidbfpo]

Patrick Cockburn's article, cited by 'Red Rat' is good, but I also found this anonymous article by a Syrian in Aleppo of value. It starts with:[QUOTE]So what went wrong? Or to be more accurate, where did we go wrong? How did a once inspirational and noble popular uprising calling for freedom and basic human rights degenerate into an orgy of bloodthirsty sectarian violence, with depravity unfit for even animals? Was it inevitable and wholly unavoidable, or did it not have to be this way?[/QUOTE

Needless to say the answer is not optimistic.

Link:http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...ppo-assad.html

[Bill Moore]

I find that list self serving, particularly the following:



(2) is in direct conflict with (3) and (4) and seems to stand in violation of the idea os using military force in a limited manner to deter further agression, a perfectly reasonable use of the military. Military victory may be independent of political objectives. In addition, if you begin a fight with the intent of finishing it that stands in contradition to the idea of reassessing the situation and adjusting the means you use to achieve your goal.

While it seems like a platatude that you never start a military fight without the intent of military victory, I think it is better to say that you should never start a military action without the realization that you may have to take it to its natrual conclusion.

Are you implying our involvement would be part of its "natural" evolution and a foreign imposed solution is natural. The list reflect the wisdom of lessons observed repeatedly throughout history, but they are not lessons learned. What exactly do you think the military can accomplish there?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Are you implying our involvement would be part of its "natural" evolution and a foreign imposed solution is natural. The list reflect the wisdom of lessons observed repeatedly throughout history, but they are not lessons learned. What exactly do you think the military can accomplish there?

I never said anything about anything being "natural." I only disliked the way the quote limited the idea of using military force as part of a collective group of way and means to pursue our national interests. Based on that quote we would never conduct a NEO action - we must be prepared to invade and control the entire country.