Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Entropy]

Prof Joshua Landis' prediction via the BBC:

Prof Landis argues that what is going on in the Kurdish north-east offers a useful pointer to President Assad's "Plan B" should his control over key cities like Damascus and Aleppo crumble.

He says that the "embattled president withdrew government forces from the north-east because he couldn't control it and wanted to focus on the most important battles in Aleppo and Damascus".

"But in the back of the president's mind, there may be the thought that empowering the Kurds is a way of weakening the Sunni Arab majority and underlining the risks of fragmentation should his government fall. It's a strategy of playing upon divisions to sow chaos," he said.

This way, says Prof Landis, "the Syrian Army - which is rapidly becoming an Alawite militia, whilst still the strongest military force - may lose control over large swathes of the country, but will remain a vital factor in determining the political outcome in Syria".

It is a bleak prospect.

Prof Landis asserts that President Assad "may lose Syria, but could still remain a player, and his Alawite minority will not be destroyed".

"That's the future of Syria," he says, with little enthusiasm. "It's what Lebanon was and what Iraq became."

I think that's the likely alternative to a complete Assad collapse.

[Surferbeetle]

Some insightful observations for your consideration; A conversation between Mr Charlie Rose (JD) and King Abdullah II of Jordan posted at Bloomberg TV on 8/8/2012

8/8: King Abdullah II of Jordan on Syria, http://www.bloomberg.com/video/8-8-k...3JmE~letg.html

Charlie Rose: King Abdullah II of Jordan on his country's role in the Middle East, the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the region and the ongoing conflict in Syria

[AdamG]

(Reuters) - The United States and its allies are discussing a worst-case scenario that could require tens of thousands of ground troops to go into Syria to secure chemical and biological weapons sites following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad's government, according to U.S. and diplomatic officials.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87G02420120817

[davidbfpo]

I cannot see how an external intervention to safeguard the Syrian state's stockpiles of chemical and other weapons can be separated from the wider context.

Perhaps an Arab League & UN intervention is an option for such a single purpose intervention. Finding willing participants will be a challenge and from memory the UN has found it hard to get competent military contingents, let alone move fast.

There are historical, regional examples when Western nations with small UN peacekeeping contingents moved quickly to intervene on agreed ceasefire lines when local and international agreement was present - that time is past (Canada & Scandinavian forces IIRC).

The most capable regional military power, Israel, has been very quiet on a post-Assad Syria and currently is reported as more concerned with the "far enemy" Iran.

[Bill Moore]

I cannot see how an external intervention to safeguard the Syrian state's stockpiles of chemical and other weapons can be separated from the wider context.

Sounds more like an excuse to justify force structure. Deploying thousands of troops will most likely be ineffective, while a much less expensive and probably more effective method would be for our intelligence assets to start making deals for the powers that be and will be in Syria (pay offs and other deals) to secure the chemical and alleged biological weapons. I agree if we make WMD the issue while turning a blind eye to the overall context we're going to make bigger mess that will undermine our interests far more than a few chemical weapons.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am curious if anyone thinks that the US, Britain, and France could back out of the corner that they have painted themselves into and support, or at least not violently oppose, Assad remaining in power.

Or do our interests in remaining closely tied to the Saudis and contra to anything Iranian trump any interest we actually have in Syria.

[Rex Brynen]

I am curious if anyone thinks that the US, Britain, and France could back out of the corner that they have painted themselves into and support, or at least not violently oppose, Assad remaining in power.

I don't think any of the three feel they are in a corner. The almost universal consensus is that Asad is going down. Western countries are happy not to be in the driver's seat on this one (or be left responsible for the post-Asad reconstruction), and will let the Saudis, Qataris, and Turks do the not-so-covert arming of the opposition.

Sure, policymakers wish it would happen faster, worry about spillover and blowback (arms, radical jihadists), and worry about CW stockpiles. Generally, however, I think the view is that this will prove to be a gain in the end, and produce a Syria that will (eventually) be more friendly to the West and more responsive to its population than the Ba'thist dictatorship was.

[Rex Brynen]

Sounds more like an excuse to justify force structure. Deploying thousands of troops will most likely be ineffective, while a much less expensive and probably more effective method would be for our intelligence assets to start making deals for the powers that be and will be in Syria (pay offs and other deals) to secure the chemical and alleged biological weapons. I agree if we make WMD the issue while turning a blind eye to the overall context we're going to make bigger mess that will undermine our interests far more than a few chemical weapons.

It is a lot more than a few, covert deals aren't really possible, and the concern is genuine (even if one feels it is misplaced). I don't think massive ground intervention is a terribly likely outcome, however.