Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[CrowBat]

A glorious idea, no doubt.

Now, would you, or the author of that article, explain how is anybody supposed to 'make peace' with Assad - if he's neither in control of even 50% of all the gangs supposed to be fighting on his behalf, nor in control of what's going on outside Damascus?

Alone the title of that feature is a shame and points at the author simply being clueless: what kind of 'least bad Jihadis' are the SF, SRF, Harakat Hazm, 13th Division-, 93rd Brigade-, 97th Brigade-, 19th Artillery Brigade FSyA etc.?

And then think about following examples:

1.) This 'regime' offensive that has cut off insurgents in Aleppo is run by the al-Quds al-Filastini Brigade, a Battalion each of Ba'ath Party Militia and Hezbollah, and only supported by (IRGC-commanded) NDF tanks and artillery. None of these formations is 'fighting for Assad', and only the BPM is 'Syrian'.

2.) The very moment Assad attempts making anything more but 'temporary truce' with another of besieged-and-starved-to-death insurgent pockets (actually, most of such truces were negotiated by IRGC-QF officers, not by Assadists), he's likely to get assassinated by one of 'his own' gangs, simply because all them either have an ideology that's exclusive and totalitarian, or so much blood on their hands that they can't make peace without concern for their own security, or are little else but criminals.

And overall: who has said that a Syria without insurgents and without the Daesh/Jihadists etc. is going to be 'stabile again'? Anybody here ready to bet the Alawites are then not going to start fighting each other, or at least not going to start fighting the SSNP, the BPM, the PLA, perhaps even the IRGC and Hezbollah - in order to re-establish their claim at exclusive right to rule?

[Tukhachevskii]

A glorious idea, no doubt.

Now, would you, or the author of that article, explain how is anybody supposed to 'make peace' with Assad - if he's neither in control of even 50% of all the gangs supposed to be fighting on his behalf, nor in control of what's going on outside Damascus?

I believe the point of the article is that Assad should be supported in regaining control of Syrian territory. As for the various forces fighting with the SAA they are only doing that because the US/UK/France/Turkey have been supporting the other guys. You can't push someone into a corner and then expect them not to use any and all measures to protect themselves. As the de facto government of Syria working with Assad means we assist conditionally; he leashes his dogs (and sends them back to where they come from) and in return we help him regain control of his country by shaping his actions, and restraining him where possible, through conditionality (stop doing X and we'll give you Y). No one said it was easy. The point is you can't help restore the Iraqi state and leave out the Syrians when they are both fighting the same enemy (which also happens to be our enemy). As for the Iranians they are merely doing what they have to to keep those maniacs as far away from their borders as they can (they are fighting in Iraq too don't you know). The best way to get the Iranians out of Syria and Iraq is to ... take their place. IMO. How is another question. I don't think large scale "BOG" is the answer. SoF (which can also collect valuable intelligence on the ground), artillery and air power might well be though.

[CrowBat]

I believe the point of the article is that Assad should be supported in regaining control of Syrian territory.

By side the fact that you're proposing cooperation with a character responsible for deployment of chemical weapons against civilians (not only insurgents); detention and murder of at least 15,000, more likely 60,000 peaceful protesters; for wholesale destruction of nearly all major cities in Syria; for death of up to 400,000 Syrians in total (of which about 210,000 are 'confirmed'); for provoking a civil war with inter-religious and inter-ethnic 'flavour'; who is not only cooperating with such terrorist organizations like the IRGC, Hezbollah, PFLP etc., but depends on them for his naked survival...

...but: how?

As for the various forces fighting with the SAA they are only doing that because the US/UK/France/Turkey have been supporting the other guys.

First of all, you should define 'SAA' here. What is 'Syrian Arab Army' today? Where is it? For example: can you mention at least one battalion or brigade of the 'Syrian Arab Army' that is still existent?

(PLEASE: just one battalion or brigade, I'm not asking for anything more.)

... As the de facto government of Syria working with Assad means we assist conditionally; he leashes his dogs (and sends them back to where they come from)...

Assad is neither in control of the IRGC-QF, nor in control of IRGC's 'regulars' deployed in Syria, or in control of Iraqi Hezbollahis recruited by the IRGC and deployed in Syria to fight against insurgents: only Khamenei is (via Vahid). Assad is not in control of the Hezbollah. Assad is not in control of such 'native' militias like the NDF (this is commanded by IRGC-QF officers), not in control of the Ba'ath Party Militia, not in control of the SSNP's militia, not in control of the PLA, not in control of the PFLP. He's not even in control of various Alawite- or IC-run militias that could be considered 'closest' to the regime (indeed, some of them are run by members of the 'inner circle').

He's only in control of quasi MOD and the chain of command inherited from the former Syrian Arab Army - the primary purpose of which is to represent that 'SAA' in the public, the air force (which is including the former air defence force), 2-3 brigades and few artillery regiments (all that is left) of the former Republican Guards Division and little else.

So, how should he 'leash his dogs'? And what do you think would the IRGC-QF do if he comes to the idea to tell them, 'thanks a lot, you can now go home'?

The point is you can't help restore the Iraqi state and leave out the Syrians when they are both fighting the same enemy (which also happens to be our enemy).

Since when is the 'regime' in Syria fighting the Daesh?

Except for Daesh's attack on Tabqa AB and nearby Army bases, can you cite one major clash between any of militias fighting for the regime and the Daesh?

And if the regime in Syria is not fighting the Daesh (which is the case), then how can you say that this regime and the government of Iraq are 'fighting the same enemy'?

As for the Iranians they are merely doing what they have to to keep those maniacs as far away from their borders as they can (they are fighting in Iraq too don't you know).

I can even cite from the Iranian doctrine of national defence developed several years ago. That's why I do understand they're fighting this battle in Syria and Iraq, no problem with this.

But, what's going to happen once they - supposedly - 'win' that war?

Or, alternatively: what's going to happen if they lose?

The best way to get the Iranians out of Syria and Iraq is to ... take their place. IMO. How is another question. I don't think large scale "BOG" is the answer. SoF (which can also collect valuable intelligence on the ground), artillery and air power might well be though.

So, you want to replace the IRGC-QF's presence and influence between the Shi'a of Iraq with help of few SF teams?

Good luck...

[Tukhachevskii]

Good luck...

Holy Moly Batman! Did I step into the Pentagon War room by accident? I do not recall, at any point, saying that I have the answers (unlike you apparently). What I did was proffer an opinion. If I were an ops planner I am sure I would have come up with an actual OPLAN that took all those factors into account. The world is not black and white; it is shades of grey The view of the world as being divided between good and evil is a peculiarly American one and which, moreover, seems to fail you at every turn. The world is, has been and will continue to be messy; there is no universal morality to which you can measure the standards of others (read Morgethau's Politics among Nations). You have to work with what you've got not with what you'd like. Furthermore, getting on a moral high horse and spitting on everyone is an activity fraught with danger (sort of like people who live in glass houses throwing stones). US actions of the past decade or more could easily be narrated or em-plotted into a similar story arc of evil and oppression against the little man.

What exactly is your angle here? What's your beef bub?


Hey! wait a minute... JMA is that you!?!?!?

[CrowBat]

I don't have a problem with you, per se, but with nearly all of ideas you mentioned.

I don't know whether it's morale, or if I'm nave or something, but there are few things I'm insistent upon. First is that I insist calling a spade a spade, no matter what it takes. Second is I say what I think: I'm not acting one way while thinking the other, I'm not trying to be diplomatic for the sake of anything, and - for example - I can't 'make friends' with people that have plagiarised my publications even if they apologise. Kill me, I'm that way, and can't say why, but for similar reasons I couldn't make deals with mass murders.

Back to the topic: in this very case, I do not see how can anybody expect to make deals with a mass murderer that is then actually a puppet? I find it silly alone to call him a 'president of Syria', whereas he's little else but a representative for a conglomerate of yet more mass murderers, criminals, and terrorists.

Talking that way signals to me: 'Hey Tom, I've got no clue what I'm talking about, but this sounds like a damn good idea.'

That's why I started asking for both, your knowledge and logic.

For example: when you're talking about 'SAA', then tell me what kind of 'SAA' is there any more?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after studying the Syrian military for years, and following this war on day-by-day base ever since it erupted, I cannot but conclude that, to the best of my knowledge, there is none, nitchevo, nix, absolutely nothing left of the 'SAA' - and that since quite long. Theoretically, one could consider the 'NDF' for its 'successor/replacement', but this is not even that: the NDF does consist of a number of companies and whatever other sorts of 'detachments', 'task forces' etc., of the former SAA. But, these have been reformed and retrained into newly-established battalions, with their - entirely new - designations too.

Without Iranians - i.e. without IRGC-QF's battlefield management staff - there would be even no unitary command of 'regime' forces.

And what's this NDF? Better guards. Even all the possible detachments from former 'elite' SAA units (like the 1st, 3rd, or 4th ADs) - now only have a bare minimum of 'offensive support' capability (in terms of, 'they can provide company-sized tank detachments for support of specific, short-duration operations'), while the majority of militias grouped underneath the aegis of the NDF only have a bare minimum of defensive capability.

Unsurprisingly, and to keep it short, the main military force of the 'Syrian regime' is not the NDF; it's a conglomerate of foreign - Iranian-controlled - militias (some of them, like certain Hezbollah units, with something like 'special forces' style of training). They're running the show: they're centrepieces of all offensives and all major defensive operations.

That's why I'm asking: it's not only 'morale', and politics. It's practiality too. How do you - or anybody else - expect the regime to 'lash its dogs', say Iranians to go, and then 'regain control of Syria' if this is de-facto the only military-like force in its hands?

Such expectations simply make no sense to me.

[Tukhachevskii]

I don't have a problem with you, per se, but with nearly all of ideas you mentioned.


Such expectations simply make no sense to me.

Fair enough pal. I've long since given up on the SWC. The toxicity levels are too high for my liking. Its obvious this thread is your little fiefdom and I wish you all the best with your interesting endeavour (there are so many undiscovered SMEs out there just aching for their big break).

I for one can't be asked anymore. There was a time when I would have passionately argued with the best of them but this "parrot is dead". I found my way here on the heels of my betters. I shall leave behind them too.

I wash may hands of this silliness.

T, Out

[CrowBat]

Why is it so that whoever is talking about 'SAA', whenever asked to explain what is 'SAA' today, to cite at least one of 'SAA' units that is still existent - and this does not matter what person or in what position, nor from what place on this planet - is offended?