Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Wyatt]

A couple thoughts. Its doubtful that many if anyone on this board knows the full extent of any support being given indirectly. If someone does it isn't being discussed with reason. So we are all working with partial information.

Second, I think its entirely predictable that after iraq and afghanistan we wouldn't touch this situation with a ten foot pole. The "moderates" may not have the ability to win simply because they are moderate. In a civil war when the participants view the struggle as an existential one, the force with the highest propensity to violence may have an advantage. Additionally, the unifying force of the desire for good government, inclusiveness and restraint is hard to turn into a stirring call to battle especially in a situation plagued by old religious and ethnic strife. Easy to turn those tensions into blind hate once you begin losing friends and family.

If we end up in a situation where we have Salafi Sunnis and the gulf states vs Assad, Hez and Iran in a war of attrition we will have a good opportunity to gather intelligence on all the above. This may not be the case but I imagine that when forces are employed in warfare they become exposed to exploitation. Im thinking along the lines of getting a better idea of existing relationships and the capabilities that hez, quds, and the saudis can bring to bear. The more active the network the more risk to make mistakes and be exposed.

My final thought is somewhat jaded. Isn't it a positive for us that we have Hezbollah, Assad forces, Quds force and Salafis all killing each other in one big party? They are mowing the grass for us. Of course the risk is that it spreads and endangers allies like the Jordanians and the Israelis.

Im new to UW and small wars so I could have made many poor assumptions.

[Bill Moore]

A couple thoughts. Its doubtful that many if anyone on this board knows the full extent of any support being given indirectly. If someone does it isn't being discussed with reason. So we are all working with partial information.

Second, I think its entirely predictable that after iraq and afghanistan we wouldn't touch this situation with a ten foot pole. The "moderates" may not have the ability to win simply because they are moderate. In a civil war when the participants view the struggle as an existential one, the force with the highest propensity to violence may have an advantage. Additionally, the unifying force of the desire for good government, inclusiveness and restraint is hard to turn into a stirring call to battle especially in a situation plagued by old religious and ethnic strife. Easy to turn those tensions into blind hate once you begin losing friends and family.

If we end up in a situation where we have Salafi Sunnis and the gulf states vs Assad, Hez and Iran in a war of attrition we will have a good opportunity to gather intelligence on all the above. This may not be the case but I imagine that when forces are employed in warfare they become exposed to exploitation. Im thinking along the lines of getting a better idea of existing relationships and the capabilities that hez, quds, and the saudis can bring to bear. The more active the network the more risk to make mistakes and be exposed.

My final thought is somewhat jaded. Isn't it a positive for us that we have Hezbollah, Assad forces, Quds force and Salafis all killing each other in one big party? They are mowing the grass for us. Of course the risk is that it spreads and endangers allies like the Jordanians and the Israelis.

Im new to UW and small wars so I could have made many poor assumptions.

I agree it is a positive in some regards that AQ related and Iran sponsored groups are killing each other. If the Iran groups win it will return to the former we're back to where we were, and if the AQ groups win Christians, Alawites, etc. will be displaced and slaughtered. We never could separate the so called moderate Sunnis from the radicals, and as you stated once family and friends start dying the character of the conflict changes at a personal level. John McCain was nave enough to pose with AQ linked extremists during his visit to Syria, if our intelligence organizations couldn't steer him straight I think that is an indicator we have no business pumping arms into the country that will (not may) go into the hands of our enemy.

Iran is a threat to the region, but Iran is a rational actor despite their rhetoric. Sunni Extremists are a threat to the region and the U.S., and they're not rational actors. Assad and his father kept the extremists at bay. Saddam did the same, and Saddam balanced Iranian influence. I'm having a hard time rationalizing the world is a safer place without strong (suppressive) Sunni leadership in Iraq. Like most I'm gland Saddam and his sons are dead, but I think we erred strategically when we pushed for democracy as soon as we did. I think the AQ threat coming out Iraq combined with the increased Iranian influence in the region threatens our interests at least as much as Saddam did.

If the purpose of committing to a war is a better peace, I'm not sure what the end state in Syria would be if we decided to intervene that would result in a better peace? Just offering to give assistance that we may or may not be giving the resistance has simply prolonged the conflict and may have resulted in a chronic conflict that will continue for decades. I would like to know how the strategic thinkers in Israel view this, do they think it would be to their advantage if the West supported the moderates? Are do they think leaving Assad in place with the best of the bad options?

Posted by Carl

What does our various trials and errors in Iraq have to do with Syria? Not much I think except as an excuse not to confront things when they appear.

Quite frankly it has quite a bit to do with it, just as the results of the Vietnam War limited our willingness to engage in other conflicts for years which in some cases was probably best, in others not so much. We don't do a good job of thinking in time, and the so called human domain at home is more important than the human domain in the conflict zone. We're a democracy, wars have to be justified and ends met, or we will lose our political will (time after time). When we know this is true then I think we have to consider the moral consequences of getting involved when victory or a better peace appears elusive unless it is a direct threat to our country. Never say always, never say never, but we do need to think this through. Our political will is already damaged by a badly run war in Iraq, adding another one to our list could paralyze us further.

I'm not opposed to covert aid to someone we consider an alley, but anymore covert aid tends to be reported on a regular basis on Fox and CNN news, so that option is only viable if people in the know can keep their mouths shut. If covert was happening we wouldn't be debating it because we wouldn't know about it. If we know we are or aren't, then we're talking about something else.

[Dayuhan]

If the Iran groups win it will return to the former we're back to where we were, and if the AQ groups win Christians, Alawites, etc. will be displaced and slaughtered.

I doubt that things will ever go back to the way they were. Assad and his allies may well win, but they are likely to be faced with a running insurgency fueled by persistent external support and safe havens over several borders. A clean and decisive "win" by the AQ/Islamist groups is equally unlikely, for many of the same reasons. Extensive killings and displacements are likely outcomes no matter who wins, or if nobody does: ugly truth, but still truth.

Like most I'm gland Saddam and his sons are dead, but I think we erred strategically when we pushed for democracy as soon as we did. I think the AQ threat coming out Iraq combined with the increased Iranian influence in the region threatens our interests at least as much as Saddam did.

True on all counts IMO, but there are real-world constraints on US policy posed by domestic and international opinion. For better or worse, the US is expected to follow the dismissal of a dictator with a transition to something that Americans can call "democracy". Installing a compliant general as the new dictator is no longer acceptable. That may not make sense in all cases, but the constraint remains, and has to be built into the exit strategy calculation from the start.

I would like to know how the strategic thinkers in Israel view this, do they think it would be to their advantage if the West supported the moderates? Are do they think leaving Assad in place with the best of the bad options?

It would be interesting to know what the Israeli inner circle thinks of it, but I doubt that we ever will. I don't expect they'd see any realistically probable outcome as positive, but I'd guess they see a continued Assad presence, especially an Assad presence constrained and weakened by long term internal conflict, as liveable.

It's important, I think, to recognize that this is not "about us" and is not (and never was) a case where we are going to control or dictate the outcome. That's not to say we couldn't dictate the outcome, but trying to do so would require a commitment of resources and an acceptance of risks that are totally out of proportion to the US interests at stake.

[Bill Moore]

I doubt that things will ever go back to the way they were. Assad and his allies may well win, but they are likely to be faced with a running insurgency fueled by persistent external support and safe havens over several borders. A clean and decisive "win" by the AQ/Islamist groups is equally unlikely, for many of the same reasons. Extensive killings and displacements are likely outcomes no matter who wins, or if nobody does: ugly truth, but still truth.

True, I should have clarified that more. I doubt Syria will enjoy a relative peace again for decades which is sad, my intent with that poorly worded claim is that a rational state actor would remain in control of Syria that Israel, Jordan, and Turkey could manage more effectively than the alternative.

In my mind there is no doubt that Assad's incompetent response to some disgruntled youth acting out resulted in a war that shouldn't have happened, but it is too late to rewrite history. I suspect he was excessively paranoid based on the Arab Spring events throughout the region and cracked down out of fear. He probably would have been more effective if he followed the King of Morocco's approach.

True on all counts IMO, but there are real-world constraints on US policy posed by domestic and international opinion. For better or worse, the US is expected to follow the dismissal of a dictator with a transition to something that Americans can call "democracy". Installing a compliant general as the new dictator is no longer acceptable. That may not make sense in all cases, but the constraint remains, and has to be built into the exit strategy calculation from the start.

Perhaps, but based on our recent experience our national leadership and our people may be more receptive to other forms of governance. Democracy works for us, but clearly it does not work in some nations. We can always state our ultimate aim is to help that nation evolve into a democracy over the years, but our first goal is enable an appropriate form of government control to prevent a humanitarian disaster.

It's important, I think, to recognize that this is not "about us" and is not (and never was) a case where we are going to control or dictate the outcome. That's not to say we couldn't dictate the outcome, but trying to do so would require a commitment of resources and an acceptance of risks that are totally out of proportion to the US interests at stake.

I have mixed feelings on this, I think this conflict is much larger than Syria, it involves the larger Shia-Sunni conflict taking place in the Muslim world, it also involves local state actors, and state actors beyond the region (principally Russia, China, and the U.S.) It certainly isn't about us, but we do have interests in how this turns out. We did a more job of responding to this also. I suspect Kerry's response would have been more seasoned and practical than Clinton's, but that is only speculation.

[carl]

A couple thoughts. Its doubtful that many if anyone on this board knows the full extent of any support being given indirectly. If someone does it isn't being discussed with reason. So we are all working with partial information.

Second, I think its entirely predictable that after iraq and afghanistan we wouldn't touch this situation with a ten foot pole. The "moderates" may not have the ability to win simply because they are moderate. In a civil war when the participants view the struggle as an existential one, the force with the highest propensity to violence may have an advantage. Additionally, the unifying force of the desire for good government, inclusiveness and restraint is hard to turn into a stirring call to battle especially in a situation plagued by old religious and ethnic strife. Easy to turn those tensions into blind hate once you begin losing friends and family.

If we end up in a situation where we have Salafi Sunnis and the gulf states vs Assad, Hez and Iran in a war of attrition we will have a good opportunity to gather intelligence on all the above. This may not be the case but I imagine that when forces are employed in warfare they become exposed to exploitation. Im thinking along the lines of getting a better idea of existing relationships and the capabilities that hez, quds, and the saudis can bring to bear. The more active the network the more risk to make mistakes and be exposed.

My final thought is somewhat jaded. Isn't it a positive for us that we have Hezbollah, Assad forces, Quds force and Salafis all killing each other in one big party? They are mowing the grass for us. Of course the risk is that it spreads and endangers allies like the Jordanians and the Israelis.

Im new to UW and small wars so I could have made many poor assumptions.

I figure that if enough support to make a difference were being given by us or other Western countries it probably could not be easily hidden. The secret squirrel stuff that was small enough to be kept secret would be too small to be of consequence...to the Syrians. It is very useful for Americans politicians, civilian and military, who want to be seen to be 'doing something'.

That is a very good point about moderates being shy of violence. But I think being personally moderate is a very different thing from being politically moderate. There is no reason a person who is a strong advocate of the rule of law, religious toleration and the other things we associate with 'moderate' polities can't be a hell on wheels fighter. The US military is full of people like that. The Mexican Revolution of 100 years ago resulted in a government that was fairly moderate given what it could have been and evolved into a pretty good example of a western polity now. Those guys fought quite hard. Menachem Begin was a killer and Israel (if you're not Palistinian) is quite the moderate place politically. Those moderates in Syria, moderates being defined as people who will run a gov that will more acceptable to us than the two leading contenders at this time, could probably fight as well as Menachem or the Mexicans if the had the stuff and money to fight with.

People seem to like the idea of our enemies over there killing each other. Your idea about getting intel is the first time I've heard that one. The problem is that this conflict won't go on forever. Somebody is going to win. And when they do, the way it is shaping up now, we ain't gonna like it. The people that backed the winning side will be that much stronger, and we won't like that either. Then we will really need that intel.

[Dayuhan]

In my mind there is no doubt that Assad's incompetent response to some disgruntled youth acting out resulted in a war that shouldn't have happened, but it is too late to rewrite history. I suspect he was excessively paranoid based on the Arab Spring events throughout the region and cracked down out of fear. He probably would have been more effective if he followed the King of Morocco's approach.

I think you're right, but as you say, water under the bridge.

Perhaps, but based on our recent experience our national leadership and our people may be more receptive to other forms of governance. Democracy works for us, but clearly it does not work in some nations. We can always state our ultimate aim is to help that nation evolve into a democracy over the years, but our first goal is enable an appropriate form of government control to prevent a humanitarian disaster.

Our experience with installing non-democratic governments has not been very good either. Ideally we would be able to avoid situations that would require us to install a government or force us to make decisions about how others should be governed... but that is perhaps too much to ask.

I have mixed feelings on this, I think this conflict is much larger than Syria, it involves the larger Shia-Sunni conflict taking place in the Muslim world, it also involves local state actors, and state actors beyond the region (principally Russia, China, and the U.S.) It certainly isn't about us, but we do have interests in how this turns out. We did a more job of responding to this also. I suspect Kerry's response would have been more seasoned and practical than Clinton's, but that is only speculation.

Agree that this is part of a broader Sunni-Shia conflict. How it turns out will inevitably affect our interests, but I don't see that we have a clear interest in any specific outcome that we have any ability to promote. I don't think wading in and getting involved, in the absence of any clear and reasonably achievable exit strategy, is going to do us any good.

The secret squirrel stuff that was small enough to be kept secret would be too small to be of consequence...to the Syrians. It is very useful for Americans politicians, civilian and military, who want to be seen to be 'doing something'.

If it's secret, it's not going to help anyone who wants to be seen "doing something"... secrets are by definition not seen. That's probably why it's not secret.

That is a very good point about moderates being shy of violence. But I think being personally moderate is a very different thing from being politically moderate. There is no reason a person who is a strong advocate of the rule of law, religious toleration and the other things we associate with 'moderate' polities can't be a hell on wheels fighter. The US military is full of people like that. The Mexican Revolution of 100 years ago resulted in a government that was fairly moderate given what it could have been and evolved into a pretty good example of a western polity now. Those guys fought quite hard. Menachem Begin was a killer and Israel (if you're not Palistinian) is quite the moderate place politically. Those moderates in Syria, moderates being defined as people who will run a gov that will more acceptable to us than the two leading contenders at this time, could probably fight as well as Menachem or the Mexicans if the had the stuff and money to fight with.

I don't see any problem with moderates being able to fight. I suspect that there is a bit of a problem defining who exactly these "moderates" are, and how moderate they are, and who else they're associated with. I'm not convinced that there's a clear and discrete moderate faction that provides a partner that we can work with. I'm sure lots of people will fall all over each other trying to tell us what we want to hear, but that doesn't mean they are really our buddies.

People seem to like the idea of our enemies over there killing each other. Your idea about getting intel is the first time I've heard that one. The problem is that this conflict won't go on forever. Somebody is going to win. And when they do, the way it is shaping up now, we ain't gonna like it. The people that backed the winning side will be that much stronger, and we won't like that either. Then we will really need that intel.

Somebody might or might not win. It's entirely possible that there might be no clear winner. In the Iran/Iraq war our policy was to assure that neither party emerged as a clear winner... cynical, but not unreasonable. It doesn't solve the problem, but it doesn't make it worse... and is there any really credible alternative that does not involve choosing a side and sticking our collective putz into the meatgrinder?

[davidbfpo]

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with two local Muslims who had been to Syria - on a humanitarian mission - whose description of the situation was far more graphic than what I've read.

It was clear that they could not understand how the UK had welcomed the first signs of 'Spring' in Syria and then when a violent response took hold how little influence the West actually had. Their preference was H2P, neither had heard of R2P. H2P is Help to People (copyright pending).

Whatever happens in Syria I have considerable doubts whether it will have much public impact in the UK. It maybe different in those countries that have far stronger links, France and Turkey come to mind. Yes there will be some regrets - for the suffering the people endured.

How the 'Arab World' will react is very unclear and I don't mean the states, rather the public. Shame maybe, bewilderment and IMHO an acceptance that so much of their aspirations and lives are far beyond their personal influence, let alone control.