Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Bill Moore]

[QUOTE]

Well I was hoping I would not have to explain this...

Yes, another failure.

Another failure for who? Another way to look at it as another failure for us was avoided.

No, no, no. That does not follow.

Contraire, it follows perfectly as we have experienced (but apparently not learned) many times before.

The US meddled ... go back and see (Google is your friend), the US and the West contributed to the resulting cock-up.

As the US had a hand in what has developed it DOES have a responsibility to help fix it.

Ethically you can make that argument and to some extent I agree, but that isn't how we work in the U.S. We meddle and F up a lot of places and don't assume responsibility for it. Just because Powell made an argument that if you break it you own it after we invaded Iraq doesn't mean its true. Bush wanted to stay, so the argument was convenient, another President could have told Powell to pound sand.

Politicians will make the decision on whether we get involved or not, and they will based that decision largely on perceived support of the American people to do so, and that element is not there. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is just the way it is. The only time politicians will violate that is if critical American interests are really at risk that the American people may not understand.

In their own minds they certainly see themselves as being 'smart-guys'

Since I occasionally interact with some of these policy advisors your statement is true for some of them, while others are as frustrated as everyone else and are open to a solution. You and Carl calling for intervention is not a solution. Intervene to do what exactly, and what is the probability our intervention will work? What will our intervention put at risk? Is it worth the risk? Saying we should intervene is quite simple, but without a plan for doing so effectively no leader in his/her right mind is going to sign up for it.

posted by jmm99

The Obama administration is again doubling back on its Syrian war policy, this time engaging in a secret approach to the Islamic Front, the most powerful force now battling the Assad regime. Recently set up by six Muslim militias with 40-50,000 fighting men, the new front is led by Hassan Aboud Abu Abdullah al-Hamawi and his Ahrar al Sham militia. Debkafile’s counter-terrorism forces report that, although its Salafist members aspire to impose Sharia law on Syria, in common with Al Qaeda, they are against its methods of warfare.

Part of the President's desired goal for Syria regardless of the outcome was that minorities would be protected, those minorities are principally the Alawites, Christians, and moderate Sunnis. I'm not sure what the Islamic Front's objectives are post Assad, but I suspect they won't be anymore interested in protecting religious minorities than the Muslim Brotherhood were in Egypt.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25362244

It's not a thought being openly voiced by the US State Department or the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but a week ago the highly respected former US diplomat Ryan Crocker told the New York Times that it was time "to start talking to the Assad regime again".

"As bad as he is," Mr Crocker said, "he is not as bad as the jihadis who would take over in his absence."

AMB Crocker is not a liberal who is opposed to the use of military force, and while I think he may have been a tad too optimistic on Afghanistan, he seems to adopted a realist view on Syria.

Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has spoken about his anxiety over an unprecedented pooling of al-Qaeda fighters in Syria.

Against this backdrop, President Assad starts to look indispensable again. A man who can deliver up his country's chemical weapons and, perhaps, take on and defeat the hardliners of the Nusra Front and ISIS.

I think we're all somewhat frustrated with reality, but you can't wish it away.

[carl]

Since I occasionally interact with some of these policy advisors your statement is true for some of them, while others are as frustrated as everyone else and are open to a solution. You and Carl calling for intervention is not a solution. Intervene to do what exactly, and what is the probability our intervention will work? What will our intervention put at risk? Is it worth the risk? Saying we should intervene is quite simple, but without a plan for doing so effectively no leader in his/her right mind is going to sign up for it.

Bill, if you mean by intervention I figure on US troops-absolutely not. I mean aid for the people we call moderates, actual realistic makes a difference aid. I also don't buy that if we do that it inevitably means US troops to follow. It may be moot though. That crew who is running things, at the very top, that crew, are so hopeless that we are on the verge of maybe deciding which group we should support, takfiri killers or Alawite killers. This is great. We're going to have a lot of credibility in the world with this one. We back Assad and we line up with Iran, the Quds force and Hez. That is going to play well in the rest of the world, and Israel. We back the takfiri killers and we line up with AQ, Taliban and the Pak Army/ISI (oh wait, we already dance to whatever tune the Pak Army/ISI plays, dead American soldiers notwithstanding). That is going to play well in the rest of the world too, and Israel. This kind of thing is unbelievable! But it is happening, to us, to my country and yours. Not to mention that CIA op in Benghazi that went bad and got an ambassador killed.

Tell those guys on high you interact with to get a backbone and open up their mouths and take their firing like men. Or resign with honor and open up their mouths. If they have the nerve to try, maybe something will change. Their pensions and careers can't be worth that much.

[Bill Moore]

Bill, if you mean by intervention I figure on US troops-absolutely not. I mean aid for the people we call moderates, actual realistic makes a difference aid. I also don't buy that if we do that it inevitably means US troops to follow. It may be moot though. That crew who is running things, at the very top, that crew, are so hopeless that we are on the verge of maybe deciding which group we should support, takfiri killers or Alawite killers. This is great. We're going to have a lot of credibility in the world with this one. We back Assad and we line up with Iran, the Quds force and Hez. That is going to play well in the rest of the world, and Israel. We back the takfiri killers and we line up with AQ, Taliban and the Pak Army/ISI (oh wait, we already dance to whatever tune the Pak Army/ISI plays, dead American soldiers notwithstanding). That is going to play well in the rest of the world too, and Israel. This kind of thing is unbelievable! But it is happening, to us, to my country and yours. Not to mention that CIA op in Benghazi that went bad and got an ambassador killed.

Tell those guys on high you interact with to get a backbone and open up their mouths and take their firing like men. Or resign with honor and open up their mouths. If they have the nerve to try, maybe something will change. Their pensions and careers can't be worth that much.

Carl,

Realpolitik isn't limited by principle, its scope is confined to pragmatism. I get your points loud and clear, but to some degree I think you overstate the case. It was pragmatic for us to back some dictators during the Cold War, and that didn't win us favor with the local populace in those countries. We provided military aid to those dictators so they could oppress their population in exchange for remaining aligned to the "free world." The Philippines comes to mind as an example, but the people there as a whole still admire America. How they have come to reconcile this history and still embrace us is beyond my understanding, but I'm glad they do, and I suspect this is true in other parts of the world. This doesn't undermine your morality argument, but it does call into question your assessment about how the people will feel about us years from now. Obama won't be in office forever, and they know several politicians wanted to help them. Also, we can't assume that we're not provided aid, maybe we actually can keep things on the low?

When you frame your arguments do you also consider that many countries aligned with Saudi are donating quite a bit of money and weapons (I suspect) to the Islamists and maybe the moderates if we have any influence at all? Not sure who Turkey is supporting, if anyone, but they don't love Assad. The point is we're not the only power in this multipolar world that is a player in Syria, so I'm not convinced, and admittedly I could be wrong, that our aid would be decisive.

[carl]

Carl,

Realpolitik isn't limited by principle, its scope is confined to pragmatism. I get your points loud and clear, but to some degree I think you overstate the case. It was pragmatic for us to back some dictators during the Cold War, and that didn't win us favor with the local populace in those countries. We provided military aid to those dictators so they could oppress their population in exchange for remaining aligned to the "free world." The Philippines comes to mind as an example, but the people there as a whole still admire America. How they have come to reconcile this history and still embrace us is beyond my understanding, but I'm glad they do, and I suspect this is true in other parts of the world. This doesn't undermine your morality argument, but it does call into question your assessment about how the people will feel about us years from now. Obama won't be in office forever, and they know several politicians wanted to help them. Also, we can't assume that we're not provided aid, maybe we actually can keep things on the low?

When you frame your arguments do you also consider that many countries aligned with Saudi are donating quite a bit of money and weapons (I suspect) to the Islamists and maybe the moderates if we have any influence at all? Not sure who Turkey is supporting, if anyone, but they don't love Assad. The point is we're not the only power in this multipolar world that is a player in Syria, so I'm not convinced, and admittedly I could be wrong, that our aid would be decisive.

Bill my argument goes beyond morality. It is mostly about real consequences of our insanity...well the insanity...no, that ain't right...the juvenile inability to see reality and understand that the world won't let you take things back of our very top leaders. It comes out as insanity so I guess it is a distinction without a difference.

Anyway these actions will result in real things happening that we won't like, and there are 3 more years left in this administration. A lot can happen in 3 years, like 1942 to 1945. I mentioned Israel twice for a reason. Those guys, if they lose confidence in us are quite likely to go off half cocked with God only knows what consequences for the world. So now they see us picking between takfiri killers who want to wipe them off the face of the earth and the Iranians and Hez who say they want to wipe them off the face of the earth. We are supposed to be able to restrain Israel now? Fat chance. There are not only the Israelis but the takfiri killers. Those guys are not going to be discouraged in the least by our weepy ineffectualness. They will be encouraged beyond imagining, not only are we weak sisters we are stupid beyond bounds previously imagined. The same with the Iranians. Those thoughts will have consequences, lethal ones. The big thing with (boy do I hate this word) realpolitik is they don't have to love you but they have respect/fear you. What reason do all those two legged beasts have to respect or fear us, a drone may get them if they aren't good boys? Right.

We did make alliance with some very unsavory characters during the Cold War. But we are choosing now between guys who are our active enemies and try to kill us when they can. We may have tried to play the Soviets and Red Chinese off against one another but I don't remember us trying to figure which one we should aid.

Not only all of the above but every potential enemy in the world is watching and learning from this, as is every ally or potential ally. And they are all figuring what they may do. I can't think how this can get worse but I guess a guy with an Ivy League education can figure a way. Maybe if this keeps up we'll get to a point where we'll be hunting some takfiri killer for killing our people in one place only to find him popping up in Syria whereupon we give him some weapons and ammunition because he has suddenly been transformed-Poof! as if by magic-into an ally.

God save us.

[jmm99]

I only know what I read about the Islamic Front; so as to this:

Part of the President's desired goal for Syria regardless of the outcome was that minorities would be protected, those minorities are principally the Alawites, Christians, and moderate Sunnis. I'm not sure what the Islamic Front's objectives are post Assad, but I suspect they won't be anymore interested in protecting religious minorities than the Muslim Brotherhood were in Egypt.

my impression is that the Islamic Front would be more repression than extermination; depends how salafist-takfirist they are at heart. My guess will be worst than yours about their heart lines.

BTW, Debka speculation does consider Assad as one possibility of three:

The administration is examining three hard options:

1. The Islamic Front is backed, funded, armed and supplied with intelligence by Saudi Arabia. By beating the FSA, the Front has awarded Riyadh high Syrian points against Washington. However, the Obama administration is deeply committed to joint steps in Syria with Moscow and Tehran, the sequel to the six-power nuclear accord forged in Geneva last month, to which Saudi Arabia is flatly opposed. President Barack Obama would therefore prefer to ignore the Saudi success in Syria.

2. For the second option, Ambassador Ford was empowered all the same to offer the Islamist Front a seat at Geneva II, the conference on a political solution of the Syrian civil conflict taking place in Montreux on Jan. 22. American military and financial assistance would also be on tap. This would be a bitter pill for the Washington to swallow, since the Islamic Front is led by commanders who quit other militias in protest against US failure to deliver promised arms.

3. The third option would be to heed voices rising now in Washington to start talking to the Syrian ruler Bashar Assad and admit that the US and the West fell down badly in underestimating his durability and military edge in the course of the three-year civil war.

Ryan Crocker, former US ambassador to Baghdad and an eminent influence on US Middle East policy in the past decade, was the first prominent voice to advocate this course: “We need to start talking to the Assad regime again…,” he wrote in an article. “ It will have to be done very, very quietly. But bad as Assad is, he is not as bad as the jihadis who would take over in his absence.”

He was echoed by former CIA and NSA director Adm. Michael Hayden, who said: “The sectarian bloodbath in Syria is such a threat to regional security that a victory for Bashar al-Assad's regime could be the best outcome to hope for.”

Talking to the annual Jamestown Foundation conference of terror experts on Dec. 11, Hayden said that a rebel win was not one of the three possible outcomes he foresees for the conflict: "Option three is Assad wins. And I must tell you at the moment, as ugly as it sounds, I'm kind of trending toward option three as the best out of three very, very ugly possible outcomes."

To be honest, my advice to the USG comes from our old favorite poster:



In other words, quit digging the hole deeper.

Here's an anecdote about our Middle East policy that I learned from looking at the FDR-ibn Saud photo.



I wondered who the kneeling Marine was.

Turns out he was Bill Eddy, Marine-OSS, Arab linguist, FDR's envoy to ibn Saud and the interpreter at the meeting. Here's the story (Eddy had a major role before and after the meeting), Today in History – King Abdulaziz and President Roosevelt Meeting (Published: February 14, 2011). Eddy wrote a 1954 monograph, FDR Meets ibn Saud.

Colonel William A. Eddy, U. S. Marine Corps, Retired, is the only person alive who knows exactly what was said between F.D.R. and Ibn Saud, as he was sole interpreter throughout.

He was born in Sidon (Lebanon) in 1896, the son and grandson of Presbyterian missionaries who lived and died in Syria.

He received his Litt.B. from Princeton University, 1917; PhD., 1922.

Professor of English, American University at Cairo, 1923-28; Dartmouth College, 1928-1936.

President of Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 1936-1941.

U.S. Naval Attache, American Legation, Cairo, 1941.

Chief of OSS in North Africa, 1942-43.

First U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary of Saudi Arabia, 1944-1946.

Consultant to Arabian-American Oil Co., 1947-1952.

Consultant also to Trans-Arabian Pipe Line Co., since 1952.

Holder of Navy Cross, the Distinguished Service Cross, The Silver Star (2), the Purple Heart (2), The Legion of Merit. Wounded in battle of Belleau Woods, 1918.

Ibn Saud was convinced that FDR had promised, as a binding commitment on the US, that the Arabs would have a veto as to the Palestine-Jewish "question". But, FDR only lasted a few months more; and then came Harry Truman. As Eddy wrote:

MR. TRUMAN

The historic conference had an anticlimax at the White House which has never been reported.

The first week in October, 1945 [1946?], the Secretary of State recalled four chiefs of U. S. Missions simultaneously to have them testify as a group to Mr. Truman regarding the deterioration of American political interests in the Near East: the U.S. Ministers in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria (jointly), Saudi Arabia, and the Consul-General to mandated Palestine.

The four arrived for a White House appointment which had been scheduled for about October 10.

The four were kept idle in Washington four weeks, away from their posts and with no duties whatsoever, because the White House advisors, including David K. Niles, persuaded the President that it would be impolitic to see his Ministers to Arab countries, no matter how briefly, prior to the November ongressional elections.

After the elections, the Director of the Near East Office of the Department of State was allowed to bring the four in for a private conference with Mr. Truman. The spokesman for the group, George Wadsworth, presented orally an agreed statement in about twenty minutes. There was little discussion and the President asked few questions in the meeting whose Minutes have been carefully guarded in the Department of State.

Finally, Mr. Truman summed up his position with the utmost candor: “I’m sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism; I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”

And, so US policy has swung back and forth ever since, based on political expediency and the relative force of the two opposing lobbies.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

[QUOTE=Bill Moore;151043]

Another failure for who? Another way to look at it as another failure for us was avoided.

Syria is a failure. Yes there were many players who stuck their oar in. Just stating the obvious.

Ethically you can make that argument and to some extent I agree, but that isn't how we work in the U.S. We meddle and F up a lot of places and don't assume responsibility for it. Just because Powell made an argument that if you break it you own it after we invaded Iraq doesn't mean its true. Bush wanted to stay, so the argument was convenient, another President could have told Powell to pound sand.

Yea, lets stick to the ethical argument.

Politicians will make the decision on whether we get involved or not, and they will based that decision largely on perceived support of the American people to do so, and that element is not there. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is just the way it is. The only time politicians will violate that is if critical American interests are really at risk that the American people may not understand.

OK but you do realize that you forgot to mention that American Presidents seem to reserve the right to break promises and desert their allies when the wind changes direction. Then Americans are surprised at the rising anti-American feelings in the world.

You and Carl calling for intervention is not a solution.

No, what I say is that you need to do what you say. This was a repeat of the Hungary 1956 debacle. The US said, rise up and we will support you... then never did.

Intervene to do what exactly, and what is the probability our intervention will work? What will our intervention put at risk? Is it worth the risk? Saying we should intervene is quite simple, but without a plan for doing so effectively no leader in his/her right mind is going to sign up for it.

Bill it starts with an objective/aim then the plan forms around that.

Personally I suggest that when Russia and China stood up to the US your president's bottle went and he collapsed like a wet paper bag. There lies your problem. The US military is capable for most tasks, it is your politicians - from the President down (and not just this administration) - who are the problem. You elect them ... your problem - and the world suffers as a result.

[Dayuhan]

OK but you do realize that you forgot to mention that American Presidents seem to reserve the right to break promises and desert their allies when the wind changes direction.

Not reserved at all. There isn't a government on this planet that would hesitate to break a promise if they though it wasn't in their interest to keep it. The powerful do it more than anyone... how do you think Britain earned the name "perfidious Albion"?

I certainly agree that American leaders make way too many poorly considered promises, many of which are downright stupid. The solution to that problem is fewer stupid promises, not keeping stupid promises. The only thing stupider than making a stupid promise is trying to keep the promise even when it's clear that doing so will almost certainly do more harm than good to everyone concerned.

Then Americans are surprised at the rising anti-American feelings in the world.

If you actually listen to the anti-American sentiments, they aren't about failure to keep promises, they're a product of the almost pathological American insistence on meddling in everybody else's business. Intervention or upgraded engagement in Syria, promised or no, would exacerbate those sentiments, not alleviate them. If we want to alleviate anti-American sentiment, our best move would be to open a big can of STFU and try minding our own business.

No, what I say is that you need to do what you say. This was a repeat of the Hungary 1956 debacle. The US said, rise up and we will support you... then never did.

I'm sure the Hungarians are to this day disappointed that they were deprived of the opportunity to serve as ground zero for World War III... and no, we don't know that would have happened. We also don't know it wouldn't have happened. Mutual Assured Destruction did have a way of generating fairly conservative assessments of risk, especially when messing in the other guy's front yard. That cut both ways, as we saw in Cuba a few years later.

Bill it starts with an objective/aim then the plan forms around that.

Absolutely. More specifically, you need an objective that's consistent with perceived national interests, and a plan that has a reasonable probability of achieving that objective without leaving you up to your eyeballs in the scheisse. What that objective and that plan might be in this case nobody seems able or willing to say. "Arm the moderates" might have something in it, if there was a discrete group of reliable moderates clearly capable of keeping their hands on what's given them and of using it to good effect. Those conditions do not appear to be in place, and choosing to support an unreliable partner leaves you with a substantial probability that you'll be forced to choose between admitting a mistake and walking away or clinging to a sinking ship. The US has been in this position way too often.

Personally I suggest that when Russia and China stood up to the US your president's bottle went and he collapsed like a wet paper bag. There lies your problem. The US military is capable for most tasks, it is your politicians - from the President down (and not just this administration) - who are the problem. You elect them ... your problem - and the world suffers as a result.

Personally I suggest that this is a complete load of bollocks. If you allow an external party to dissuade you from doing something that you wanted and intended to do, you lack bottle. If you allow yourself to be maneuvered into doing something you never wanted or intended to do because you're afraid of what someone might think, you lack brains. There's no evidence to suggest that the US administration (or any substantial part of the political opposition) ever wanted or intended to get seriously involved in Syria. Reluctance to get involved in a situation where there is no compelling national interest at stake, zero popular support, and no available course of action that seems even remotely likely to generate a favorable outcome is common sense, not lack of bottle. There was a reference above to the US looking for a new dancing partner. If the music sucks and the prospective partners are pig ugly, what is so unreasonable about deciding to sit this dance out?

The real constraint on American action in Syria, beyond the lack of a practical objective consistent with perceived interest and a plan with a reasonable chance of success (neither lack has proven much of a constraint in the past) is not the Russians or the Chinese, but the Americans: American leaders do have to maintain some awareness of public sentiment (one of those peculiar quirks that goes with democracy), and in the current domestic environment the prospect of diving into yet another Middle East quagmire is politically about as toxic as a proposition can get.

[jmm99]

Looks like someone is listening to Ryan Crocker and Mike Hayden if this story pans out. In any event, thorough analysis of the political spectrum on your part.

Reuters, Exclusive: West signals to Syrian opposition Assad may stay (by Khaled Yacoub Oweis, AMMAN, Dec 17, 2013):

(Reuters) - Western nations have indicated to the Syrian opposition that peace talks next month may not lead to the removal of President Bashar al-Assad and that his Alawite minority will remain key in any transitional administration, opposition sources said.

The message, delivered to senior members of the Syrian National Coalition at a meeting of the anti-Assad Friends of Syria alliance in London last week, was prompted by rise of al Qaeda and other militant groups, and their takeover of a border crossing and arms depots near Turkey belonging to the moderate Free Syrian Army, the sources told Reuters.

"Our Western friends made it clear in London that Assad cannot be allowed to go now because they think chaos and an Islamist militant takeover would ensue," said one senior member of the Coalition who is close to officials from Saudi Arabia.

Noting the possibility of Assad holding a presidential election when his term formally ends next year, the Coalition member added: "Some do not even seem to mind if he runs again next year, forgetting he gassed his own people."

The shift in Western priorities, particularly the United States and Britain, from removing Assad towards combating Islamist militants is causing divisions within international powers backing the nearly three-year-old revolt, according to diplomats and senior members of the coalition. ... (much more in story)

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Mike:

After reading that story you linked to, I am more certain than ever the Geneva talks will be very fruitful and everyone will participate honestly, sincerely and forthrightly.

That story also contained this statement:

"If the opposition rejects such a deal, they will lose most of the West and only have Saudi Arabia, Libya and Turkey left on their side."

the deal being accepting that Assad will hang on.

I figure Saudi Arabia, Libya and Turkey are all they need judging by the results so far. Gee, imagine not having the feckless Americans backing you. The horror.

[jmm99]

From Today's Zaman, Turkey offered Biden ‘Yemen model' for Syria (18 December 2013, DENİZ ARSLAN, ANKARA)

Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç had brought up the “Yemen model” as an inspiration for a solution for war-torn Syria during his meeting with US Vice President Joe Biden at the White House last month, Today's Zaman has learned from a source who is intimately familiar with the content of the conversation. ...

This proposal sounds nuts to me; but why not let the inmates run the asylum ? Everything else seems to be on the table.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

A source to be taken with several grains of salt, but I expect they are not far off on the Saudi position (somewhat exaggerated in the headline)...

http://rt.com/news/saudi-arabia-syrian-policy-464/

'With or without West': Saudi Arabia ready for unilateral action on Syria

The kingdom’s ambassador to London, Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, said that the Western approach to the region is a “dangerous gamble” that jeopardizes stability in the Middle East.

Instead Riyadh, a geopolitical rival of Iran and Syria, wants to independently arm the Syrian insurgents, saying the country “cannot remain silent, and will not stand idly by,” Abdulaziz wrote in a New York Times commentary.

The prince accused the US coalition of allowing “one regime to survive and the other to continue its program for uranium enrichment, with all the consequent dangers of weaponization."

Of course it's no secret that the Saudis would like to have the US do the dirty work and get Assad and the Iranian regime out of the picture for them. Whether acting as hired muscle for the Saudis is or is not in the interests of the US is another question altogether.

[SWJ Blog]

Syrian Refugees & Why Realists Are The Real Ethicists

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog...ed-syrian-war/

A Syrian with close ties to Turkish officials told me that the Turks pass the buck: “the third countries let them leave so why should we stop them?” Last month, perhaps in a sign of the mounting pressure, Turkey reported that it had kicked out 1,100 European fighters. At points it has seemed upset at the foreign fighters, closing the border this fall when ISIS took over nearby areas. Still, Ankara seems reluctant to clamp down on ISIS in areas where it has battled the Kurdish PYD, whose growing strength is a threat to Turkey. (The PYD has close ties to the PKK, the militant Kurdish group in Turkey which Ankara is now trying to make peace with.)

If rebel commanders are reluctant to be openly critical of ISIS, their subordinates are less so. “They are foreigners occupying our land,” one fighter for Ahrar al-Sham, a large Salafist network, told me. “They ban people from smoking straight away—not even a doctor would prescribe that!” another rebel fighter, a nineteen-year-old from Aleppo, said. ISIS has also changed Syrians’ view of the war. “If the choice is between ISIS and Assad, I’ll take Assad,” says a Syrian friend who enthusiastically supported the protests.

It is a long and well written article, another interesting paragraph or two talks about ISI's increasing control of the border with Turkey, which is if an intentional part of their strategy it seems sound since they can control the aid coming in from the West to the resistance.

[carl]

Bill M:

The article mentions ISIS's quick rise in Syria. That suggests to me sponsorship by a nation state. Which one do you think it is?

ISIS is a bit spooky right now but I wonder about their long term viability. There seem to be a lot of foreigners in their ranks and they are quite extreme, both of which anger the locals. That doesn't seem to be a formula for success.

[Bill Moore]

Bill M:

The article mentions ISIS's quick rise in Syria. That suggests to me sponsorship by a nation state. Which one do you think it is?

ISIS is a bit spooky right now but I wonder about their long term viability. There seem to be a lot of foreigners in their ranks and they are quite extreme, both of which anger the locals. That doesn't seem to be a formula for success.

Carl,

I guess that could be true, and any number of the Middle Eastern states that feel threatened by Iran such Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, etc. could be providing financial and other support directly or indirectly to ISIS. Just as likely is the fact that ISIS and other Sunni groups had well established clandestine cell networks established in Western Syria to fight us when we were in Iraq, so I think it can be assumed they were well postured to respond quickly when the opportunity emerged. Lots of variables and all speculation on my part.

[CrowBat]

Bill M:

The article mentions ISIS's quick rise in Syria. That suggests to me sponsorship by a nation state. Which one do you think it is?

I'm sorry if the following might appear 'rough', even 'unfriendly', but I find attempts at monitoring conflicts like this one in Syria in this fashion for utterly failed.

Firstly, the ISIS didn't 'rise quickly' in Syria. Early attempts of various Salafists and Wahhabists to call for 'jihad' in Syria, from back in summer 2011 for example (let me know if you need any references), were directly ridiculed - and this foremost by practically all Syrian Salafists. Nobody in Syria (except the regime) called the al-Qaida for help, and certainly not to come and fight there.

Even once the ISIS did start to go into Syria (in summer 2012), it managed to do so only with help of bribing regime's commanders of specific parts of the country. (This in turn prompts the question if the regime was not actually very, very, very keen to get the ISIS into the country and that way 'obtain' the enemy it was all the time [i.e. right from the start of mass civilian protesting] claiming to be facing.)

It took nearly two years for the ISIS to get itself organzied there and even now it can sustain itself in place only with help of terror comparable to that of the Assadist regime (i.e. the same terror with help of which the Assadist regime is maintaining itself in power since 40+ years). Plus, until just a few days ago, the number of cases where the ISIS battled the regime could be counted on fingers of one, perhaps two hands (at most). And the cases in question were limited to various of ISIS idiots voluntering to drive suicide-bombs into entrances of specific bases held by regime loyalists, to open way for other (native Syrian) insurgents...

On the contrary, the ISIS is exclusivelly excelling at attacking native insurgent groups and taking over the areas that these have liberated. Until few days ago, not one of ISIS cliques got involved in any kind of a 'major armed clash' with the regime (and when this happened, an entire 'brigade' - read: approx a reinforced company - of Iraqi Wahhabists from Falluja was overrun by an Iranian-run Mahdi Army front group, in al-Jufra, outside Dayr az-Zawr).

It's not without the reason that the Syrians in liberated areas are not only 'sceptic' but outright anti-ISIS, and that the ISIS is forced to react with brutality and terror to frequent protests against it (in turn, this brutality and terror are the reasons we hardly get to hear about this: the ISIS is beheading any journos it can put its hands upon). And it's not the least surprising that there are only 2-3 Syrian Salafist clans that have sided with them. Essentially, and no matter how much they're attempting to present themselves as 'being welcomed by Syrians', that's all the 'native' and 'genuine' support the ISIS is getting in Syria.

Secondly, after all the US experiences with al-Qaida, I find it astonishing that anybody still comes to the idea that groups like ISIS 'must be sponsored by a nation state'. If al-Qaida of the 1990s didn't show that one needs no 'nation state' to sponsor such groups, but rather 'few enterprising businessmen', I don't know what else might ever help you?

Gentlemen, let me remind you: we're not talking here about the KSA during the famine of 1942, but countries - like such US 'allies' like KSA, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar... erm, even Iraq, etc. - where there are thousands of influential people literally swimming in billions of dollars and euros. And we're talking about bitterly poor Syria, where one can buy a week-worth of food for an entire family of 4-6 for 'two bucks'. Just to think there are not enough 'sheiks', 'private enterpreneurs', 'NGOs' etc. that can easily sponsor such bands like the ISIS, is 'naive', to put it mildly.

Regarding 'ISIS is a bit spooky': not the least. They are present in the mass media. Actually, thanks to our stupid and lazy media, they are overrepresented.

That's a direct result of the ISIS striving to present itself as a widespreadly-supported, popular and even 'Syrian' movement, that is - essentially - 'the leading force' behind the Syrian uprising. Of course, this is BS, but it's because of this effort that an image is created of the ISIS as 'omnipresent' in Syria, and the only force fighting the regime.

Actually, the ISIS is presenting various of its 'units' as 'native' or 'allied' movements, while they are anything but that. Examples are numerous: the ISIS presents the notorious Jaish al-Muharijeen wa al-Ansar (actually the 'Northern Group ISIS') as its 'allies', while this is actually the main body of the ISIS' fighting force in Syria, yet consisting exclusively of foreigners. The ISIS declared the Lions of the Caliphate Battalion for some sort of 'native insurgent group' in Lattakia, while this is ISIS' 'elite' fighting force in Syria, including only 2-3 Syrians. The Jamiat Jund ash-Sham is presented as 'Syrian', while it's actually an ISIS-run unit of Lebanese Salafists. ISIS bands of foreign Jihadists in Dayr az-Zawr area - like Tajamu Mujahidee al-Qaqaa and Liwa al-Qaqaa - are purposedly misreported as at least 'allies' of such native Islamist groups like Ahfad ar-Rasoul, or even as parts of these (at least as 'fighting in cooperation with...'), just in order to present native groups as 'al-Qaida allies' to the Western public, and no matter of that fact that such groups like Ahfad ar-Rasoul are directly at odds with the ISIS.

So, ask yourself: why is that gang so 'spooky' as it appears to you, and why would the ISIS need to do all of this if this would be 'truth'?

That all said, there is at least one thing where we do agree: yes, 'thanks Allah', that's definitely no formula for a lasting success in Syria.

[carl]

CrowBat:

If the result of you being 'rough' or even 'unfriendly' is cogent analysis and a useful laying out of history that I didn't know, please abandon all notions of being 'nice' and get meaner, kick a few puppies even.

The reason I asked about sponsorship by a government is because I remember back in the 90s when people seemed a bit mystified about the rise of the Taliban. Later it turned out the answer was to a large extent the Pak Army/ISI. I figured maybe something similar was happening here.

Besides, ISIS has only been around for a little while, since the summer of 2011 say. That is not very long. AQ central has been around rather longer. One of the reasons they have lasted so long is they have had, if not the sponsorship of nation states, at least been given sanctuary by nation states, Afghanistan and the Pak Army/ISI...oh, err...Pakistan. It will be interesting to see how long they can hang on. (It may be true but I hate using that construction 'will be interesting' when we are talking about innocent people being murdered.)

The ISIS may not be spooky to you but it is to me and I'll bet to the people under their control. In the long run they probably can't last but in the short run they have a lot of money and no apparent shortage of manpower. That can give them a lot of local power, not a good thing for anybody. Do you think they can be ejected before one side or another actually wins in Syria? Do the local clans have enough power on their own to throw them out? I ask because in Iraq, the local clans didn't have the power to do that. They had to throw in with the Army and Marines to get it done. There doesn't appear to be anybody in the ISIS controlled areas to help the local clans.

[Bill Moore]

CrowBat,

I actually agree with parts of your post, despite your twisting of the facts to fit your narrative.

Firstly, the ISIS didn't 'rise quickly' in Syria. Early attempts of various Salafists and Wahhabists to call for 'jihad' in Syria, from back in summer 2011 for example (let me know if you need any references), were directly ridiculed - and this foremost by practically all Syrian Salafists. Nobody in Syria (except the regime) called the al-Qaida for help, and certainly not to come and fight there.

They actually did rise quickly once they started operating there. Of course both sides will accuse the other of supporting AQ since the local population is beginning to hate them for good reason. I find it doubtful that the regime supports them, but not completely without merit. Assad made stupid decisions from day one, so this could be just be another stupid decision my some members in the administration, but it doesn't fit well the over arching conflict between Sunni's (Al-Qaeda) and Shia (Iran sponsored). Still possible, but much more likely they're funded by Sunnis outside of Syria.

It took nearly two years for the ISIS to get itself organzied there and even now it can sustain itself in place only with help of terror comparable to that of the Assadist regime (i.e. the same terror with help of which the Assadist regime is maintaining itself in power since 40+ years). Plus, until just a few days ago, the number of cases where the ISIS battled the regime could be counted on fingers of one, perhaps two hands (at most). And the cases in question were limited to various of ISIS idiots voluntering to drive suicide-bombs into entrances of specific bases held by regime loyalists, to open way for other (native Syrian) insurgents...

This part is where I think you are playing with the facts. Assad and his father certainly established a dictatorship and employed harsh techniques in the past when the Sunni fundamentalists stuck their head up, but to compare that to the tactics ISI is using was a stretch until this current conflict where admittedly Assad lost all moral legitimacy with the way he responded. There is the rest of the story that must be considered to provide needed context, and that is the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist Sunnis were not fighting for the Syrian people, only the Sunnis, so other groups are fighting for their very survival. Our media and Congress initially focused on the FSA which created this vision of good guys and bad guys, which was not an accurate portrayal of the conflict. I do think many in the FSA were good guys based on our value system in the West, but it never was "only" about them and the Assad regime. The other actors were there, mobilizing to take advantage of the situation. As to your other comments about ISI's strategy of consolidating their positions in rebel held territory and avoiding confrontation with the Syrian forces until now, well as much as I hate the ISI I have to agree that is pretty sound strategy on their part.

I find it astonishing that anybody still comes to the idea that groups like ISIS 'must be sponsored by a nation state'.

I agree with you here, they have been sponsored by wealthy individuals for years as you pointed out, but I also don't find it unreasonable that some states could sponsor them based on the Sunni-Shia civil war, especially if they a position of operational advantage. Furthermore, if ISIS is controlling the borders as stated in the article, they may simply be grabbing the weapons, money, etc. coming in that was destined for other groups.

And we're talking about bitterly poor Syria, where one can buy a week-worth of food for an entire family of 4-6 for 'two bucks'. Just to think there are not enough 'sheiks', 'private enterpreneurs', 'NGOs' etc. that can easily sponsor such bands like the ISIS, is 'naive', to put it mildly.

If you're talking about today after a few years of war you're absolutely right, but if you're talking about Syria prior to the conflict it was far from bitterly poor. In fact their economy was growing rapidly and steadily, even during the global recession, and the middle class was expanding. Germany and other countries found Syria to be one of, if not the fastest, growth market for their luxury cars. Of course not all benefited from this growth, just like most countries in the West, to include the wealthiest we have large pockets of poverty.

That's a direct result of the ISIS striving to present itself as a widespreadly-supported, popular and even 'Syrian' movement, that is - essentially - 'the leading force' behind the Syrian uprising. Of course, this is BS, but it's because of this effort that an image is created of the ISIS as 'omnipresent' in Syria, and the only force fighting the regime.

I don't know how they're presenting themselves to the Syrian people, but they seem to be an organization incapable of learning, and I agree the only way they maintain control is through terrorism, which will once again backfire on them.

So, ask yourself: why is that gang so 'spooky' as it appears to you, and why would the ISIS need to do all of this if this would be 'truth'?

Since when isn't the truth the first victim of any conflict? Deception has always been a principle line of effort in war, so we shouldn't be surprised by any of this.

You obviously have strong feelings about this conflict, which is understandable. In your view if there are any good guys who are they? Do they have a snowball's chance in succeeding even if the West provides them support? My concern is our indecisive support will simply drag the conflict on longer and more and more innocent people will continue to suffer.

[CrowBat]

Carl,
just a few days ago I've had a discussion with several Austrian and German mil officers, and one of them came up with a similar comparison between the emergence of ISIS and that of the Taliban.

Call it 'hair-splitting', but that's just not the same. The Taliban were set up by Pakistanis; but: al-Qaida was not. As such, the al-Qaida was in Afghanistan even before the Taliban were a twinkle in Musharaf's eye.

Also, if the ISIS was set up by any 'nation', then by the Assadist regime. If you wonder why: so it can confidently say exactly what all the Western public LOVES to hear now, 'here you are, it's an uprising of al-Qaida, not of some Syrians that might not like us'.

(Note: I was following the situation in Afghanistan all through the 1990s, and was all the time reporting that the Taliban were set up by the Pakistanis: NOBODY wanted to listen back then, not even in 2003-2004, when the first US Army officers came back from the Af-Pak border to tell how the Pak army was sipping Tchay while the Taliban were running 'business as usual'. Wouldn't it be that my blog from those times was hacked to pieces in 2003, I wouldn't be as outraged now, then it would be easy to point you there...)

ISIS is around 'for a little while' - but in Iraq, not in Syria. And it was nowhere to be seen in Syria before September 2012. It appeared in the Dayr az-Zawr Province and then moved closer to Aleppo shortly after the insurgent offensive there stalled.

How long can it hang around? Very long. Again: Syria is piss poor. Anybody with a bank account of anything like US$ 1 million is 'super rich' there. That's why anybody with any kind of - foremost commercial, of course, but also political and religious - interest in influencing the future of that country has it easy to buy entire 'armies' there. I said it already back in September 2012, and it seems I can't say it often enough: Washington could've bought all these groups that are now declaring themselves for 'Islamic Front', for 10 million or so, back then (of course, it didn't for one million of reasons which you'll get expertly explained by Dayuhan, just for example, and which actually have nothing in common with 'realpolitik').

Again: back in summer 2011 it was various idiotic wannabes from such 'spiritual and respected pi..-holes' like Mauritania and wherever else, that were calling for 'Jihad' in Syria. And it was the Syrian Salafists - first and foremost - that were telling them, 'go to hell, we neither need nor want you here'. Back then, they - the Syrian Salafists - were telling even the Saudi Salafists to go f. themselves.

Call it 'hairsplitting', but that's so because 'Salafist' and 'Salafist' is not the same (not even 'Muslim Brotherhood' and 'Muslim Brotherhood' is the same): Syrians are a bunch of different ethnic and religious groups living together since some 6,000 years. Like Germans and Japs learned that fighting wars is a stupid idea, so also the Syrians learned that inter-ethnic and inter-religious strife is at least as dumb. Only the Assadists yielded profits from emergence of inter-ethnic/religious strife and emergence of the ISIS, nobody else - and even Syrian Salafists were aware of this, right from the start of the uprising (that's why they, plus the Syrian MOBs were as quiet as a grave back then, and for much of the time afterwards).

That's just one of reasons why Syrian Salafists are 'different', but it's also why other 'Islamist' insurgent groups there can't understand how comes Washington pinned the JAN (Jabhat an-Nusra) on the 'list of terrorist organizations', and why they say, 'if they're terrorist, we're all JAN', and why the JAN neither agreed to merge, nor can really work with the ISIS any more....

Of course, the situation is gradually getting different. But, it's still nowhere near as far as all the possible talkingheads in the West are explaining, like that 'it would be better to stay with Assads', or that the ISIS is 'taking over the moderate Syrian insurgency'. Even if all the European wannabe-Jihadis would go to Syria tomorrow in the morning, they'd still wouldn't get out with more than 20% of men the other insurgent groups have under arms.

So, what kind of incredibly stupid creatures are preparing some of 'assessments' we've got to hear in recent weeks... well, that's beyond my ability to comprehend...

The ISIS may not be spooky to you but it is to me and I'll bet to the people under their control. In the long run they probably can't last but in the short run they have a lot of money and no apparent shortage of manpower. That can give them a lot of local power, not a good thing for anybody. Do you think they can be ejected before one side or another actually wins in Syria?

The ISIS is like a very aggressive sort of cancer: due to their sadism and brutality, and because nearly all of native Syrian insurgent groups are too busy fighting the regime, they can spread. If nothing is undertaken against them, they'll continue to spread until they really collapse all the other insurgent movements - plus themselves.

Now, I do not expect this to happen, but that's how it functions.

Do the local clans have enough power on their own to throw them out? I ask because in Iraq, the local clans didn't have the power to do that. They had to throw in with the Army and Marines to get it done. There doesn't appear to be anybody in the ISIS controlled areas to help the local clans.

It's all a question of money: the one with deeper pockets can buy more people.

AFAIK, and no matter how absurd it sounds, but we can all thank 'Allah' (and I'm a convinced atheist!), the Saudis jumped in and - literally - did what the West should've done two years ago, i.e. started buying all the groups that are now fighting as 'Army of Islam/Islamic Front'. It's 'good' that they had 15 billion reasons (invested by Saudis in Syria in the last 10 years, primarily out of fear from a possible al-Qaida staged uprising at home!) to do so. And good because that corrupt, alcohol- and Ukrainian-prostitutes-vasting bunch in Riyadh (better known as al-Saud family) is at odds with al-Qaida.

Yup, ladies and gentlemen: that lovely and pluralist regime is going to do the job the 'freedom and democracy loving' West should've done.

Oh, just don't get surprised if, once they finish it (and they'll certainly do so, don't worry), Syria is going to be anything else but 'freedom and democracy loving'.