Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[JMA]

Besieged and terrified … and the food is about to run out for Damascus refugees

Syrian blockade of Yarmouk refugee camp raises fears for 18,000 people left starving inside, with some already resorting to eating leaves and animal feed

Who gives a rats ass about the starving kids I hear from the so-called great and civilised nations of the world.

How do they sleep at night?

[CrowBat]

Nobody. That's why it's so sillent here: presently, everybody and his/her next kin is busy thinking about reason 745.398 - related to ignoring repeated use of chemical weapons by regime in Idlib area (should have something to do with supposed 'red lines'), the last few days...

[wm]

Nobody. That's why it's so sillent here: presently, everybody and his/her next kin is busy thinking about reason 745.398 - related to ignoring repeated use of chemical weapons by regime in Idlib area (should have something to do with supposed 'red lines'), the last few days...

Lots of people care. They just happen to prioritize their national blood and treasure differently than others might like. Who helped Biafra or Bangladesh?

[CrowBat]

Lots of people care. They just happen to prioritize their national blood and treasure differently than others might like. Who helped Biafra or Bangladesh?

Did I start talking about 'red lines'?

And re. Biafra: nobody (that is, at least no nation officially sided with separatists), and in Bangladesh it was India.

I don't see Austrians or South Africans clamoring to send their fighting men into the fray, so why shout so loudly? Would you volunteer your sons (figurative or literal) for this war?

Let me see...

Did Austria or South Africa say, 'Bashar, if you use chemical weapons, that's a red line'? Does either of the two have bases in about 150 countries and territories around the globe, and is either claiming to be the 'cradle of democracy' or is eager to 'support anybody fighting against terrorism'?

I moved out of Vienna a few years ago, so might not be entirely current with latest developments: perhaps I've missed or have forgotten something, so please feel free to correct me.

That said, sure: the last I recall, our nifty FM and MOD have withdrawn our 'peacekeepers' from the UN-contingent on the (Syrian side) of armistice lines on the Golan because they saw them under a threat. They did so at the first sign of trouble there, so yes: I agree that they're sissies (our troops less so, see their deployment in Chad).

Prior to that, they (the 2nd Bn) were there since something like 40 years, spending most of the time drinking themselves into unconsciousness - because of boredom. For what purpose, nobody really knows. Supposedly, they were 'protecting peace'; actually, they were establishing de-facto Israeli occupation and annexation of the Golan Heights. The latter is not recognized even by the DC, but who cares? De-facto is certainly perfectly enough for everybody with corresponding interests.

So, obviously, I'm very supportive of such 'meaningful' deployments. So much so, I'm probably the next to get suspended for posting sarcastic commentary.

And the South Africans... oh my, indeed, they are the last to send their troops into the fray. For example, they didn't do so in the DRC, and even less so in the CAR. And they didn't do so in the DRC for example, because the DC is supporting a genocidal regime in Kigali, and thus - indirectly - the M23 'insurgents/rebels', while at the same time the SOCOM and AFRICOM are burning billions of US-taxpayer's money for sending planes and troops there, for which nobody can say what to hell are they doing there (then, ho-hum, they aren't doing anything at all, except landing, inspecting, walking around, disappearing in the jungle etc.).

But sure, I should not come to the idea to connect that 'military operation' with taking over the illegal extraction of Congolese koltan, gold and diamonds from Rwandans, and/or Israeli diamond-handlers.

Well, whatever they're doing there, it's certainly 'far more important' and 'of crucial national interest' for the USA - than Syria is ever going to be. Damn, here's the idea: why not send South African troops to Syria? That way they could be as curbed as much as anybody else trying to help the insurgency there...

Hope, I've got everything right and to your full satisfaction here.

[Wyatt]

Nobody. That's why it's so sillent here: presently, everybody and his/her next kin is busy thinking about reason 745.398 - related to ignoring repeated use of chemical weapons by regime in Idlib area (should have something to do with supposed 'red lines'), the last few days...

I don't see Austrians or South Africans clamoring to send their fighting men into the fray, so why shout so loudly? Would you volunteer your sons (figurative or literal) for this war?

[Wyatt]

I don't see Austrians or South Africans clamoring to send their fighting men into the fray, so why shout so loudly? Would you volunteer your sons (figurative or literal) for this war?

Edited to add.

This question was to far too harsh and upset the very constitution of our most esteemed commonwealth friend. For that I shall humbly submit the required text and nix my crude comeuppance in the bud.

"that having reviewed earlier posts by JMA I note that nowhere did he advocate boots on the ground so my comment on his sons was out of line. My apologies."
<--- I even included your quotation marks!

As far as this.... "I'll put money on it that you don't have the balls or the integrity to do it"

Nous Defions!

PM again for my PayPal info.

[Dayuhan]

In case you're curious about what JMA actually did advocate, it's here:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...=12821&page=12

Two cruise missiles is all it will take...

With this as clarification:

Don't think you were there when I first raised this in the 'Ivory Coast' thread, so here we go:

Quote:
It is time to stop pussy-footing around and apply JMA's 3-Cruise-Missile-Option.

With some sections of the army wavering (it appears) the first missile targets the barracks of the most loyal unit to Gbagbo - do it now, tomorrow.

The second with 12 hours warning targets the current location of Gbagbo himself - he won't be there but will get the message strength 5.

Thereafter the word is put out that there's a $1m for the person who provides Gbagbo's location as a target for the third missile.

JMA never explained what he expected the outcome of this proposed action to be, so on that score your guess is as good as mine.

My own guess is that the outcome would have been Assad going to ground, his army moving out of their barracks and dispersing their assets, and a combined message telling us to stick our demands where the sun don't shine. That of course would leave us with a choice between backing down and escalating, neither appealing.

Obviously nobody knows what would have happened if... but somehow that proposal seemed to me unlikely to achieve much.

I mention it only on the principle that people who accuse others of "getting it wrong" really ought to be able to offer a convincing suggestion of what "getting it right" would have been.

[CrowBat]

Edited to add.

This question was to far too harsh...

Why 'far too harsh'? Because you missed South African deployments to the CAR and the DRC, or because you're supposing that I'm proud of Austrian government?

Hey, yesterday the Austrian government decided to accept 40 refugees from Syria. Wow. For a fierce patriot like me, that's almost as much as somebody else declaring 'red lines' - and then swiftly forgetting about them. I now have every imaginable reason to be proud... to be _extremely_ proud... of 'my' government, isn't that so?

[Dayuhan]

Don't worry: I have realized already months ago there is no point in 'lecturing' you about anything at all.

There's no point in lecturing anyone here. This is not a classroom, where someone appoints you master and your lessons are received without question. It's a discussion forum, where people engage as equals and no opinion or position is any better than the evidence and reasoning presented to support it.

It's not only that you can't learn: you refuse learning even from your own mistakes - or mistakes of your own government, to be more precise - so what would be the point?

There seems to be some confusion here between fact and opinion. You seem to feel that the US government's failure to become directly involved in Syria was and is a mistake. That's your opinion. Others have other opinions. While there's no doubt that Syria is a mess, it is at least not our mess, and if we have to choose between a mess with us in the middle of it and a mess without us in the middle of it, I for one will take the latter any day.

You're asking since when is the USA responsible for protection of civilians...

Whether this is the official US policy or whatever else, it doesn't matter: it's not me who is declaring the USA for 'craddle of democracy', 'supporting anybody struggling for freedom and democracy' and all other BS of that sort. That's simply the image emitted by the USA since decades. That image has created specific expectations from specific people outside the USA: you can now ignore this and explain it for irrelevant, and no part of your policy, and whatever other nonsense, but this is the soup the USA have created. Therefore, don't get surprised when there are plenty of people disapointed to realize the USA do not act that way in reality - and then turning against the USA as as result.

Hence the overwhelming global clamor for US involvement in Syria... oh, wait, that doesn't exist, does it. You may perhaps have noticed that US involvement in the domestic conflicts of other nations is typically not greeted with joy or perceived as support for democracy. More often it's perceived, with good reason, as self-interested meddling. I've no doubt that there are factions in Syria that would be delighted to take our guns and (especially) our money, but I see no reason to suppose that the absence of US interference is perceived as failure to support democracy. Fear that people will doubt our commitment to democracy if we don't dive into every conflict on the planet is a very weak argument for intervention.

In 1989, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan which they have sysematically ruined in 10 years of war. They've left behind a week 'central' government, opposed by US/Saudi sponsored insurgency, run by Pakistan. Instead of doing something to rebuild the country, the USA have left Afghanistan at mercy of Pakistani (and other) Saudi-sponsored Islamists - with well known results. What a surprise then, that 20+ years later Afghanistan is still the same quagmire....

Of course it is. That's not because of any lack of the US "doing something to rebuild the country", it's because building a nation and installing democracy were never realistic goals from the start. The US can't build an Afghan nation: only Afghans can do that, and they will have to do it in their own time and in their own way, not at the behest of or on a template provided by Americans. Sending an Army to build a nation makes about as much sense as asking an engineer to do neurosurgery in any event. The lesson to take away from Afghanistan is that "armed nation building" is a fool's game and any intervention that has a chance of forcing the US into a nation building role should be avoided like the plague.

In 1991, the USA kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, and then called Iraqis to raise against Saddam. The Iraqis did so, but did not receive any kind of support: Saddam was left free to gas Shi'a in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north. When, 10 years later, the USA finally came to the idea to remove Saddam, Americans were ah so greatly surprised the Iraqis were not the least pleased about their late appearance....

I agree that urging Iraqis to rebel when there was no will to support them was stupid and wrong... but are you seriously arguing that this mistake was a cause of the later resistance to American occupation? That seems quite insupportable. Somehow I don't think those Sunni insurgents in Fallujah and Ramadi were fighting because the US failed to support them against Saddam, and the Kurds, who had more reason than anyone to feel betrayed, showed no great enthusiasm for the insurgency. If we take a lesson from this, it will be that the reactions of various parties in Iraq to the eventual American occupation were driven by their perceived interests, threats, and opportunities at the time, not by memories of transgressions past.

The uprising in Libya received Western/NATO+friends support within 2 months of breaking out. It was over within 8 months, with dictatorship removed. Correspondingly, there was no time for Wahhabists (or similars) to gain a foothold, not to talk about 'taking over' the insurgency. Instead, Libya now has a pro-Western government. Surely, it's going to need another 10-15 years to get all of its troubles sorted out, but its biggest problem is out of the way.

I would call Libya a qualified success, in that the two primary goals of the intervention were achieved: the dictator fell and the US was not dragged into taking responsibility for the aftermath. Whether that could have been repeated in Syria is another question altogether: Syria is not Libya and would have been a far more complicated target for intervention. You know the reasons why, I'm not going to bother listing them.

The uprising in Syria is now more than 3 years old. It never received any kind of serious Western support (or if, then only in the last few weeks), with the result of the Wahhabists (and/or similars) being given all the time not only to gain a foothold, but indeed nearly collapse the insurgency 'from within'. Result: none of problems from 2011 has been removed, the country is in tatters for decades, unlikely to regain any semblance of sovereignity, full of extremists of all sorts, harbouring heavy IRGC-QF presence etc., and therefore likely to remain a main source of troubles for the time of our lifes.

If you want to argue that the US should intervene or should have intervened in Syria, you'll need to demonstrate what vital or at least pressing US interests are/were at stake (last effort in this regard went in the fail bin), and show that there is/was an opportunity for intervention that offered reasonable prospects for success without threatening to draw the US into full-scale involvement. It would also help to demonstrate that there was sufficient home front support for intervention to sustain he effort, because it's never a good idea to start something if you know the commitment to finish it isn't there.

I'm begging you, Dayuhan: PLEASE, do not 'learn' anything at all from all of these. Come back with your silly babbling about the lack of proxies in Syria, about the lack of cohesion within Syrian insurgency, and then go on listing the remaining 745.394 of your cheap excuses.

Non-intervention doesn't need an excuse, all you need is the absence of compelling reason to intervene and a lack method that offers a good chance of success and limits the risk of escalation. Intervention is a costly, risky, and messy business that goes wrong more often than right, and the burden of proof is on those proposing it, not those opposing it.

Saying that intervention goes wrong because it's done wrong means nothing unless there's a credible explanation of what doing it right might be.

But, and whether you accept them or not, and no matter how much you refuse to accept them, these are bottom line facts. That's where the core of the issue - namely utter stupidity of decision-makers in Washington - lies; and that's all I have to say to you any more.

No, those aren't facts. Those are your opinions. There's a difference.

[CrowBat]

...There seems to be some confusion here between fact and opinion....

Cut the ****, really. There's no 'confusion'. You're putting words into my mouth and turning and twisting my argumentation as it suits you.

Namely, it's something like one year ago that I told you: NO, there is NO point in USA launching an intervention in Syria. It's MUCH TOO LATE.

Can you compute and get that into your mind?

Or are you just unable to understand what you read, i.e. prefer to ignore what I wrote?

Namely, all I'm telling you (and all the ones thinking like you) all the time is: STOP MEDDLING THERE. Hands off Syria. Do not mix into that affair.

Though keep in mind: that includes 'stop preventing others from aiding insurgency' - too.

Like so many other people with similar standpoints, you have no trace of an idea what's going on there, and - worst of all - you don't know how to care about consequences of what you're doing (so much so, one should forbide such characters to get involved into foreign politics).

From your standpoint (and with 'your' I mean you and everybody else thinking the way you do), the only thing 'interesting' about Syria is whether there's AQ there or not. I say, yes, there is AQ there, and it is there because nothing was done against it when there was time to do something (and there was plenty of time, and even more opportunity). Whichever way, it doesn't matter any more. You decided not to do anything about it when there was time and opportunity, you decided that this is so because there was no 'pressing/vital national interest' to do so - and now INDEED, it's not your business any more.

...You may perhaps have noticed that US involvement in the domestic conflicts of other nations is typically not greeted with joy or perceived as support for democracy....

And? Why are the USA then curbing support from other parties for the insurgency? If it's 'a bad idea' to mix there, then why mix at all?

Why insist on 'we're not going to get involved', but then get involved in a fashion that is only protracting the war, which is only providing Iran with more opportunity to bolster the regime, and therefore results in increasing the suffering and destruction of the population?

Of course it is. That's not because of any lack of the US "doing something to rebuild the country", it's because building a nation and installing democracy were never realistic goals from the start.... The lesson to take away from Afghanistan is that "armed nation building" is a fool's game and any intervention that has a chance of forcing the US into a nation building role should be avoided like the plague.

Hehe: thanks! Yes, they were no goals (neither 'realistic goals' nor any other kind).

Why did the USA got involved then? For what 'goal'? A pay-back for Vietnam - at the cost of bolstering Islamist regime in Pakistan, enabling it to make a nuclear bomb, and impose a Wahhabist regime in Afghanistan...? Because you can't think about consequences of what you're doing...?

And furthermore: along that line, what is then the goal of ongoing US involvement in Syria? Enabling the regime to survive, enabling Iranians to take over the country, or enabling the Wahhabists to impose their regime? Doing the same like Assad did through creating an 'extremist Islamist oppostion/cum Jihad', by turning Syria into what the USA are preaching all the time that Syria is, namely a 'terrorist empire' and ally of that supposed 'axis of evil'...?

And what's the lesson? Let me guess: you'll never come to the idea to conclude that the lesson is that if you mix without sober thinking about consequences, and especially while having no clue about what's going on, all the BS you caused is going to get back to you like a 'boomerang' - though one consisting of a truck-load of bricks (or hijacked airliners flown into your skyscrapers)....?

I would call Libya a qualified success, in that the two primary goals of the intervention were achieved: the dictator fell and the US was not dragged into taking responsibility for the aftermath. Whether that could have been repeated in Syria is another question altogether: Syria is not Libya and would have been a far more complicated target for intervention....

And now you're back to telling jokes...

Just a page or so back, you explained that such an intervention in Syria would be contraproductive because presence of US troops in Syria (something nobody sane has ever demanded) would make Syria a sort of magnet for all possible Jihadists.

When asked if Syria didn't became a magnet for Jihadists already without US military presence (or precisely because there was no intervention on time so to prevent such a development, like there was in Libya), you decided to ignore that question - because you realized that was a wrong idea. And after realizing that was a wrong idea now you come back to explain for 27th time that 'Syria is not Libya' - while having proven yourself as having no clue about Syria, first and foremost (so, if you have no clue: how can you draw any comparisons?) - and then rush to get back to your off-topic dogma, namely 'Tom wants a US intervention in Syria', no matter how much is that based on little else but your imagination.

What are you going to insinuate as next - and why?

...you'll need to demonstrate what vital or at least pressing US interests are/were at stake..

Sigh... here we go again: NONE. There are neither vital nor pressing interests for the USA in Syria.

Thanks. Then do us all a favour and GET TO HELL OUT OF THERE, PRONTO.

For the sake of Syrians - and anybody with at least two sane brain cells left around: forget about that country, act like you've never heard about it (shouldn't be a problem, should it?), PLEASE.

[Wyatt]

Why 'far too harsh'? Because you missed South African deployments to the CAR and the DRC, or because you're supposing that I'm proud of Austrian government?

Hey, yesterday the Austrian government decided to accept 40 refugees from Syria. Wow. For a fierce patriot like me, that's almost as much as somebody else declaring 'red lines' - and then swiftly forgetting about them. I now have every imaginable reason to be proud... to be _extremely_ proud... of 'my' government, isn't that so?

Who says I'm proud of my governments response? Its pretty easy to make the case that this administration is indecisive, I won't argue against that. The policy makers are not people I hold much faith in. I do have faith in those who inevitably get told to implement policy on the ground.

Maybe behind the administrations hand wringing is a cold reality that for at least awhile, Quds force, hizb allah and متشدد everywhere get to spend some time killing each other. Perhaps they are content, indifferent or too cowardly to do anything more than fan the flames with some small arms and tow missiles. This administrations risk calculus is obviously way different than your own.


The question wasn't "far too harsh" for me. It was considered ill founded by JMA.

[davidbfpo]

Once again VICE's reporter reports from Idlib Province, as a guest of the Saudi-backed SRF, 25 mins long:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cb3OURdl3g

The text ends with:

What we witnessed was a brief window into a complex and morally ambiguous conflict with no end in sight.