Page 23 of 46 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 460 of 904

Thread: Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

  1. #441
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Making Bill cry...

    Guess, the developments in Syria of the last few days are going to make many of those who are trying to track them - cry. Reason: this war really 'went ape'.

    Where shall I start...?

    Let's try it in this fashion...

    The Western point of view regarding Syria is 'simple': 'If you're tollerating al-Qaida, even welcoming it, you're supporting al-Qaida, and therefore: you're a terrorist'.

    Syrian point of view is much more complex. Also because of all the isolation that country experienced in the last 60 or so years. Foremost, there is that issue of 'welcoming the guest', mentioned in one of articles I cited above. Traditionalists and conservative as they are, generally, the Syrians can't ignore the guest, or turn against him/her. They must welcome a guest.

    Now, they'll not go as far as to offer him their wife, like in some other parts of the world, but a guest is always going to get a cup of tchay or coffee, a place to sleep if needed, and the host is going to patiently listen and talk with him/her. Sometimes the guest might have a diametrly opposite opinion, for whatever reasons, but that's going to be tollerated.

    So, from their standpoint, when the AQ - aka ISIS - arrived there and said it's going to fight the regime, it was 'welcome' to do so. When the ISIS began to spread within liberated areas, in turn making insurgent units free to move to the frontlines of the war with the regime, it was 'welcome' too. And when it began to impose its dictatorship to these areas, it was still 'tollerated', although causing much dissent. Many of various native insurgent commanders experienced major problems while trying to get their fighters to move against the ISIS. Not few paid the ultimate price for this, which in turn caused plenty of concern between the others. Eventually, nobody trusted himself to make the first move...

    So, now, the Saudis first created that Islamic Front (IF), last October. But, they couldn't move plenty of involved commanders against the ISIS, i.e. people that concluded that the ISIS has 'overstayed the welcome'. Eventually, they had to turn to what was left of the FSyA and various other - say 'moderate to Islamist' - groups, and group these into the Jaysh al-Mujahideen (JAM)...

    On 2 January this year, the JAM and the FSyA launched a major offensive against the ISIS (or 'D'ash', in local parlance) in Aleppo and Idlib Provinces, and within the following three days overrun most of D'ash's HQs and check-points there, killing more than 200 (including several top commanders) and arresting around 100 of Jihadists. The ISIS reacted with panic (including complaints about 'excessive jamming of its telecommunications'), withdrawal and plenty of car-bombs (as usually, they can't 'fight'). Most of the IF and its allies spent the first two days just 'sitting and watching' what's going on. But then also groups like Jabhat al-Akrad, Liwa'a al-Tawhid and finally even Ahrar ash-Sham joined the fight - primarily because the ISIS began attacking them (apparently because it couldn't organize a counterattack against the JAM). Although they are not 100% precise, the two maps below are illustrating the results of their work... (hope, the links are going to work)





    While this is going on, the regime exploited the near-collapse of the ISIS to rush several of (supposed) 'Syrian Arab Army' (SyAA) units into Aleppo and re-capture large swats of the city from the ISIS. 'Problem': although the units in question used to be parts of the SyAA (especially so various former special forces/airborne/ranger battalions), nowadays they are assigned to the NDF and not wearing their usual designations any more, but names like 'The Shield of Assad' and similar. With other words, and as mentioned several times so far, there is no 'SyAA' any more, rather a conglomerate of ex-SyAA units now run by the NDF and the Ba'ath Party Militia (in collusion with the IRGC, of course).

    At the same time... 'in the lands beyond, beyond'...

    Well, the JAM-FSyA-IF coalition from Aleppo and Idlib Provinces functions 'quite well'. But, it's limited to that area. Namely, in the Hassakah Province, in NE Syria, the ISIS, JAN and several IF groups or allies (like Ahrar ash-Sham) have launched a counteroffensive against the major Kurdish armed group, the YPG (military wing of the PYD), and have yesterday recovered the town of Tel Hamis. Reason: the YPG/PYD do not want to fight native insurgent groups, so they withdrew.

    To make matters more complicated: the YPG's proxy in Aleppo, Jabhat al-Akrad, is fighting with the JAM and the IF against the ISIS (and the regime) and have forced it out of Manbij and Jarabulus...

  2. #442
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Well, the JAM-FSyA-IF coalition from Aleppo and Idlib Provinces functions 'quite well'. But, it's limited to that area. Namely, in the Hassakah Province, in NE Syria, the ISIS, JAN and several IF groups or allies (like Ahrar ash-Sham) have launched a counteroffensive against the major Kurdish armed group, the YPG (military wing of the PYD), and have yesterday recovered the town of Tel Hamis. Reason: the YPG/PYD do not want to fight native insurgent groups, so they withdrew.
    Not crying yet, but this paragraph points something out that I addressed in other forums. It appears the only unifying factor for these numerous groups is the ISIS and Assad, once they're gone what will unify them? The group that has the largest coalition and garners the most support from external actors will be the strong group as long as it can retain that position, but I bet they can't and the sands will constantly shift. Doesn't bode well for a stable democracy if Assad falls.

  3. #443
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    ...and the Kurds, obviously.

    The Assyrians are probably the next on the list, then the Syriac Union Party's Military Council apparently joined the YPG, yesterday...

    The point about the ISIS in NE Syria is quite simple: except for local oilfields, they've got only a few important places there, and thus didn't get an opportunity to kill and torture activists and oppositionals as they did in Aleppo and Idlib Provinces. Because of this, nobody there minds them.

    We'll see if the car-bomb they set off in al-Mayadin (Dayr az-Zawr) yesterday might change anything.

    It's entirely different in Aleppo, and even in Raqqah. Meanwhile, the ISIS is entirely out of Aleppo (the IF+FSyA have captured the ISIS HQ in the city, yesterday, and instantly found a mass grave with 100+ bodies), and was pushed - by Ahrar ash-Sham - out of Raqqah too (there the IF+FSyA liberated about 50 hostages, including scores of activists, journos and doctors). Because the ISIS meanwhile withdrew from Kweres AB, their only remaining stronghold in that province now is Azzaz.

    Further east, the Jihadists are still holding out in Tel Abyad and east of Raqqah, but I do not expect them to survive there for very much longer.

    (Guess, Zawahiri must be throwing up right now: he was calling for the ISIS to get the hell out of Syria since months...)

    ...once they're gone what will unify them?
    Nothing. There are, like there always were, big differences between merchants, urban population and rural population in Syria. Like there are always differences between various segments of population in practically every other country on this spacecraft named 'Earth'. This is a matter of fact, and an issue that simply has to be respected.

    Of course, you're right that the party with strongest support from abroad is likely to get most powerful. With most of support presently arriving from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it's obvious we can't expect a lot there in regards of 'democracy'.

    But, exactly that is the sad story here: because the West missed a great opportunity and the Syrians are unlikely to forget who has left them down, it's 'us' (West) who are going to be the biggest losers in this brawl.

  4. #444
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Who loses?

    Citing Crowbat's last post's fin al paragraph:
    But, exactly that is the sad story here: because the West missed a great opportunity and the Syrians are unlikely to forget who has left them down, it's 'us' (West) who are going to be the biggest losers in this brawl.
    Yes what has happened to Syria for a long time has been a sad story, even if dictatorial rule had some material benefits and for the West (even Israel) Assad gave a strong element of stability - even if he was a "rejectionist".

    The protests and the civil war that followed never gave the West 'a great opportunity' to effect change.

    Who forgot the Syrians and let them down? Yes, the West did, but far greater damage may affect China, Iran and Russia plus Hezbollah. The big caveat is - who wins in the end (which is far away). If I was a Syrian who fled I would be angry that all those rich Arab nations were singularly absent from caring for them in the camps; instead they financed the war and factions that appear to be mainly not Syrians.

    The biggest losers are first the Syrian people, then all its neighbours and then others further away - including the West.
    davidbfpo

  5. #445
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    But, exactly that is the sad story here: because the West missed a great opportunity and the Syrians are unlikely to forget who has left them down, it's 'us' (West) who are going to be the biggest losers in this brawl.
    A "great opportunity" to do what, exactly... and when did this "opportunity" arise?
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  6. #446
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    A "great opportunity" to do what, exactly... and when did this "opportunity" arise?
    The same like in Libya, for example, and there was more than enough opportunity during 2012.

    Perhaps even less: with enough money, weapons and supplies on hand, the insurgents could've finished the Assadist regime already by late 2012 - in turn preventing the spread of the ISIS. And even later on: as of early 2013 they were still advancing and by April last year the regime was really within weeks of collapse. Instead, the West did nothing, offering the regime - i.e. the IRGC - more than enough time to organize (Iranian) intervention.

  7. #447
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Not crying yet, but this paragraph points something out that I addressed in other forums. It appears the only unifying factor for these numerous groups is the ISIS and Assad, once they're gone what will unify them? The group that has the largest coalition and garners the most support from external actors will be the strong group as long as it can retain that position, but I bet they can't and the sands will constantly shift. Doesn't bode well for a stable democracy if Assad falls.
    The Mexican revolution of 100 years ago was pretty messy for a long time too, so this isn't very unusual. It eventually worked out. A difference then was that Mexico was sort of out of the way and not too many outside actors poured a lot of money in as they, some of them, are doing in Syria.

    I should mention that lots and lots of innocent people got killed while it was working itself out.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  8. #448
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    The same like in Libya, for example
    The geography of Libya is very different from that of Syria, as was the geography of the conflict, with a discrete rebel territory and capitol well separated from the forces of the dictator. The decision to intervene was made white the dictator's forces were crossing the desert, providing a discrete target highly vulnerable to air attack and an opportunity to reverse the momentum of the conflict. Syria's air defenses are much more sophisticated tan Libya's and would ave taken a much more intensive effort to degrade. And on, and on... but in short, apples and oranges. Te Libyan "solution" was never going to be applicanle in Syria.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    Perhaps even less: with enough money, weapons and supplies on hand, the insurgents could've finished the Assadist regime already by late 2012
    Highly speculative conclusion at best.

    Even in the (unlikely, IMO) event of an Assad collapse, what's the most likely scenario? Look at Libya today. If Syria were in the same condition, we'd see exactly what we're seeing now: Iranian and Saudi proxies duking it out for control. It sure as hell wouldn't be the US or "the west" calling the shots, though of course if the US or "the west" were perceived as having removed Assad, they'd be held accountable for the outcome despite being unable to control it. Does that sound an attractive position to be in?

    The only opportunity that I can see "the west" missing in Syria is the opportunity to embroil itself in yet another irresolvable Middle Eastern quagmire.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  9. #449
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    All those factions and their seemingly ever changing forms, coalitions and names made me think about passages I have read in 'Homage to Catalonia' by George Orwell.

    When I came to Spain, and for some time afterwards, I was not only uninterested in the political situation but unaware of it. I knew there was a war on, but I had no notion what kind of a war. If you had asked me why I had joined the militia I should have answered: 'To fight against Fascism,' and if you had asked me what I was fighting for, I should have answered: 'Common decency.' I had accepted the 'News Chronicle-New Statesman' version of the war as the defence of civilization against a maniacal outbreak by an army of Colonel Blimps in the pay of Hitler. The revolutionary atmosphere of Barcelona had attracted me deeply, but I had made no attempt to understand it. As for the kaleidoscope of political parties and trade unions, with their tiresome names--P.S.U.C., P.O.U.M., F.A.I., C.N.T., U.G.T., J.C.I., J.S.U., A.I.T.--they merely exasperated me. It looked at first sight as though Spain were suffering from a plague of initials.

    I knew that I wasserving in something called the P.O.U.M. (I had only joined the P.O.U.M. militia rather than any other because I happened to arrive in Barcelona with I.L.P. papers), but I did not realize that there were serious differences between the political parties. At Monte Pocero, when they pointed to the position on our left and said: 'Those are the Socialists' (meaning the P.S.U.C.), I was puzzled and said: 'Aren't we all Socialists?' I thought it idiotic that people fighting for their lives should have separate parties; my attitude always was, 'Why can't we drop all this political nonsense and get on with the war?' This of course was the correct 'anti-Fascist' attitude which had been carefully disseminated by the English newspapers, largely in order to prevent people from grasping the real nature of the struggle.

    But in Spain,especially in Catalonia, it was an attitude that no one could or did keep up indefinitely. Everyone, however unwillingly, took sides sooner or later. For even if one cared nothing for the political parties and their conflicting 'lines', it was too obvious that one's own destiny was involved. As a militiaman one was a soldier against Franco, but one was also a pawn in an enormous struggle that was being fought out between two political theories. When I scrounged for firewood on the mountainside and wondered whether this was really a war or whether the News Chronicle had made it up, when I dodged the Communist machine-guns in the Barcelona riots, when I finally fled from Spain with the police one jump behind me--all these things happened to me in that particular way because I was serving in the P.O.U.M. militia and not in the P.S.U.C. So great is the difference between two sets of initials!
    Obviously every civil war is unique due to it's circumstances and but at least a good deal of the logic persists. It is just tempting to put the names 'Syria' and 'confusing names' in the place of Spain and 'its plague of consonats'.

    The Inter-party struggle continues today, an anybody in your camp with does not follow the party orthodoxy can quickly become a more important target then the common enemy. It is quite amazing if you repeat the mental experiment and replace the islamic phrases of that ISIN (or ISIL or who knows) man with communist ones like 'counterrevolutionary trotzkyists' instead of 'heretic apostolates'.
    Last edited by Firn; 01-11-2014 at 03:33 PM.
    ... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

    General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
    Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935

  10. #450
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    T[h]e Libyan "solution" was never going to be applicanle in Syria.
    <snip>

    Even in the (unlikely, IMO) event of an Assad collapse, what's the most likely scenario? Look at Libya today....
    My two sentences were within the same context, i.e. belonged together, and as such no proposition for a 'military intervention', but an argumentation 'pro' strong and clear support of revolutionaries-cum-insurgents in Syria.

    Anyway, if you like to go back to Libya: I find it really boring you're still insisting on media's notion that the 'country is falling apart', 'sinking into anarchy' etc. Yup, no doubt, if we're listening to our media, this is indeed that way. Just, as explained to you somewhere else on this forum already a month or two ago, something entirely else is the case, and the troubles that are there (like those with militias that are refusing to disarm, 'unacceptable' politicians etc.), are nothing but 'normal' for a country in such a situation. Absolutely nothing unexpected (well, except for people like you, of course). Actually, the situation in Libya, and the mod of Libyans, as well as that of the local economy, is quite good and slowly - but certainly - improving. Foremost, the country is staunchly pro-West (let me know if you need any citations from various polls).

    If Syria were in the same condition, we'd see exactly what we're seeing now: Iranian and Saudi proxies duking it out for control. It sure as hell wouldn't be the US or "the west" calling the shots, though of course if the US or "the west" were perceived as having removed Assad, they'd be held accountable for the outcome despite being unable to control it. Does that sound an attractive position to be in?
    That simply wouldn't happen (all provided there was timely reaction, of course). I explained why, to the length already. Would you be so kind to re-read my older posts to this topic, or do you want me to repeat it again, and again, and again?

    The only opportunity that I can see "the west" missing in Syria is the opportunity to embroil itself in yet another irresolvable Middle Eastern quagmire.
    Fine. If it's by your predilection, Dayuhan, much of Texas would still be a big quagmire too (whether because of original geography or because of all the issues over it with Mexico). Just because it's so much better to let a quagmire remain a quagmire - than to dry it out?

    But never mind: it's not like the West created that quagmire in the Middle East, right? Ah no, that's a standpoint that only 'revisionists' can represent.

    ************

    EDIT: sigh... if nothing else, people like Dayuhan could finally start learning about at least one, crucially important thing about 'extremist Islamists'.

    Whenever and wherever they establish themselves something like 'in power' - be that Afghanistan, Yemen, Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, you name it, there is no exception - they always spoil that with their sadism and brutality. They are so successful at this, that even Zawahiri can't stop calling various of his supposed 'leutenants' around the world for tolerance and modesty. I guess that stupid must have major stomach problems meanwhile.

    So, what are you actually afraid of? AQ taking over some place?

    Haha! As sarcastic as it might sound, and as tragic as it certainly is for the people living at the piece of real estate in question (wherever and whenever it might be, doesn't matter now), the AQ couldn't do the West any bigger favour than trying to 'take over'.
    Last edited by CrowBat; 01-11-2014 at 06:11 PM.

  11. #451
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    Whenever and wherever they establish themselves something like 'in power' - be that Afghanistan, Yemen, Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, you name it, there is no exception - they always spoil that with their sadism and brutality. They are so successful at this, that even Zawahiri can't stop calling various of his supposed 'leutenants' around the world for tolerance and modesty. I guess that stupid must have major stomach problems meanwhile.
    Me and Bill Moore were wondering about this a few posts back. The takfiri killers can never stay in a place long because they are such nasty people. But, they always seem to be able to establish themselves. I've been thinking about this. I opined before that part of their appeal is they have sold themselves as being Muslimer than thou. Maybe part of that appeal IS the sadistic and cruel behavior.

    Figure it like this. You are a whiskey swilling gulf sheik or the wife of a whiskey swilling, womanizing gulf sheik and you are worried about getting to paradise. So you give to somebody who is really strident about being a pious Muslim to better your chances of getting to paradise. Part of that stridency is them saying that if those kaffirs don't submit, we'll make them. I figure that would appeal to that whiskey swilling sheik because it is a theoretical to him, a theoretical that makes him feel holier. He doesn't have to live it or look at the severed heads on the ground, all he has to do is feel good about giving money to really pious, militant guys.

    When those guys get kicked out. It is no big deal. That whiskey swilling sheik can still say I did my part, I'm pious. And after he has drunk another case of Johny Walker and abused another Russian hooker he will need to buy another chance at paradise and will be quite willing to give money to the next takfiri killer who comes calling. So the next country or area has to endure the coming of the killers. From the standpoint of the whiskey swilling sheik it is much more satisfying to give to those guys than some reasonable imam who says sensible things. ( http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...sheikh/304053/ )

    (The above article is all I know about that sheikh. But it conveys what I am getting at.)

    Additionally, that sadistic cruelty might be a, God help us, recruiting tool. There are people in the world in whom, for some reason, the beast lives a little closer to the surface. I think the role of takfiri killer appeals to them more than being a mere anti-Assad rebel.

    So there exists the means to constantly restart the thing. The key is the donations. If we could stop those...
    Last edited by carl; 01-11-2014 at 07:52 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  12. #452
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    Anyway, if you like to go back to Libya: I find it really boring you're still insisting on media's notion that the 'country is falling apart', 'sinking into anarchy' etc. Yup, no doubt, if we're listening to our media, this is indeed that way. Just, as explained to you somewhere else on this forum already a month or two ago, something entirely else is the case, and the troubles that are there (like those with militias that are refusing to disarm, 'unacceptable' politicians etc.), are nothing but 'normal' for a country in such a situation. Absolutely nothing unexpected (well, except for people like you, of course). Actually, the situation in Libya, and the mod of Libyans, as well as that of the local economy, is quite good and slowly - but certainly - improving. Foremost, the country is staunchly pro-West (let me know if you need any citations from various polls).
    Libya may be neither as badly off as mainstream media claim nor as well off as you suggest, but the reality remains that a post-Assad Syria would inevitably see extensive external intervention by Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and their proxies. A few others would likely be in the mix as well. The US would have no capacity at all to control or even significantly influence the outcome. Placing yourself in a position where you are going to be held responsible for an outcome you cannot control is thought to be undesirable.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    That simply wouldn't happen (all provided there was timely reaction, of course). I explained why, to the length already. Would you be so kind to re-read my older posts to this topic, or do you want me to repeat it again, and again, and again?
    You don't know what would have happened. Discussion of "what might have happened if..." is not explanation, it's speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    Fine. If it's by your predilection, Dayuhan, much of Texas would still be a big quagmire too (whether because of original geography or because of all the issues over it with Mexico). Just because it's so much better to let a quagmire remain a quagmire - than to dry it out?
    "Dry it out"... that's worked ever so well in the past. What did we spend in our efforts to "drain the swamp" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what did we gain? What makes you think that the US or "the West" has the capacity to dry out the Syrian quagmire without sinking into it?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    But never mind: it's not like the West created that quagmire in the Middle East, right? Ah no, that's a standpoint that only 'revisionists' can represent.
    The west contributed to the evolution of the Middle Eastern quagmire: "created" would be an exaggeration. That doesn't mean the West has any useful role to play in ending it: generally our attempts to make it better end up making it worse. Over-intervention in pursuit of our own interests contributed to the evolution of the current situation, but we aren't going to "fix" the problem with more intervention.

    Might be instructive to look at Southeast Asia and Latin America in the 70s and 80s. US intervention in those places at those times contributed to the development of massive instability and institutionalized violence. When the Cold War ended and the US ratcheted back involvement, the situation improved dramatically. We may have helped create the mess but we didn't fix it. We got out of the way, tried the radical step of minding our own business, and the locals fixed it themselves.

    EDIT: sigh... if nothing else, people like Dayuhan could finally start learning about at least one, crucially important thing about 'extremist Islamists'.

    Whenever and wherever they establish themselves something like 'in power' - be that Afghanistan, Yemen, Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, you name it, there is no exception - they always spoil that with their sadism and brutality. They are so successful at this, that even Zawahiri can't stop calling various of his supposed 'leutenants' around the world for tolerance and modesty. I guess that stupid must have major stomach problems meanwhile. [/QUOTE]

    Yes, we all know this already.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    So, what are you actually afraid of? AQ taking over some place?
    No, I'm afraid of the US getting involved in another situation it can't manage or control, and that intervention will lead to full scale US involvement in a conflict where the US has no vital national interest at stake, no clear, practical, and achievable goal and no exit strategy.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    Haha! As sarcastic as it might sound, and as tragic as it certainly is for the people living at the piece of real estate in question (wherever and whenever it might be, doesn't matter now), the AQ couldn't do the West any bigger favour than trying to 'take over'.
    So why does the US need to get involved?

    What do you think the US should do, or should have done? Specifically, please.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  13. #453
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    The US would have no capacity at all to control or even significantly influence the outcome.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Placing yourself in a position where you are going to be held responsible for an outcome you cannot control is thought to be undesirable.
    Why would we be held responsible? Why wouldn't all those other countries be held responsible?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  14. #454
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firn View Post
    All those factions and their seemingly ever changing forms, coalitions and names made me think about passages I have read in 'Homage to Catalonia' by George Orwell.


    Obviously every civil war is unique due to it's circumstances and but at least a good deal of the logic persists. It is just tempting to put the names 'Syria' and 'confusing names' in the place of Spain and 'its plague of consonats'.

    The Inter-party struggle continues today, an anybody in your camp with does not follow the party orthodoxy can quickly become a more important target then the common enemy. It is quite amazing if you repeat the mental experiment and replace the islamic phrases of that ISIN (or ISIL or who knows) man with communist ones like 'counterrevolutionary trotzkyists' instead of 'heretic apostolates'.
    This was a relevant and outstanding find, thanks for posting. Wish it was mandatory reading for all the sabre rattling Congressmen who think U.S. intervention would result in something for the U.S. and the region as a whole. Then again that is probably asking too much . Politician embrace their soapboxes and reject the need to demonstrate character. Careerists will simply spout uninformed presumptions that are intended to hurt the other political party, so they can preserve their political careers. We worry rightfully about toxic leadership in the military, but we ignore it in Congress. Which one is a greater risk to our nation?

  15. #455
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Why?
    Even with occupying armies in place the US has been unable to shape outcomes to our liking in Iraq and Afghanistan. What earthly reason is there to suppose that we could shape an outcome to our liking in Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Why would we be held responsible? Why wouldn't all those other countries be held responsible?
    The hypothetical proposition was that "western" (meaning American) intervention could have been the decisive factor in removing Assad. If you're the decisive factor in making something happen, you will be blamed for the outcome, whether you deserve it or not... and of course folks in that part of the world (and in many other parts) are always more than ready to hold the US accountable for any damned thing, given even a fraction of a reason, or sometimes even without one.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 01-12-2014 at 03:57 AM.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  16. #456
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Dayuhan,
    I'm sorry, but I can't read your post without ROFL any more. We used to have some interesting exchanges of opinions in the past, but when it comes to your argumentation regarding Syria, it really looks to me as if you're hard at trying to make me laugh.

    You insist on ignoring what I posted about Syrians and their POVs regarding whom would they like to support them (in struggle against Assadists and Iranians), who is actually supporting them, and what repercussions this has for their POV regarding the West.

    You insist on explaining me what would a 'post-Assad Syria' look like - and as next explain me I can't know what would happen?

    And just when one might expect that you wouldn't try to make yourself ridiculous, you come with an explanation that contains a description of what is ALREADY NOW going on in Syria (namely, 'external intervention by Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and their proxies') - in a predominantly pro-West Arab country - as an argument 'against' US/Western attempts to meddle....

    As a 'desert', I guess, you serve the argument contra-US-interventions by citing a number of cases where the US either imposed a dictatorship (often after crumbling a nascent democracy), or (literally) went in, screwed up, and then run away.

    Considering how much money the US has burned for such - utterly failed - interventions, I'm really surprised you can't come to the idea that investing anything into Syrian insurgency might be a useful solution?

    That's mindboggling, and comparable only with ideas of certain European leftists who think (literally) that the sun is shining because Obama is US pres.

    ********

    Gosh, I've got to sort myself out now: if this goes on like this, I'll need a consultation of my MD, and a nurse to take care of me. In worst case they'll lock me up in some lovely, soft and all-white place.

    ********

    Sigh...I'll try to continue without laughing and descending to sarcasm all the time.

    Let me remind you first and foremost, that the situation in Syria right now is a direct result of the US decision (primarily US decision; French, for example, were just a step short of launching a direct military intervention), NOT to meddle, but to let the Arabs sort out the matters for themselves. Summarized, the US excuse was something like 'I don't want to fight for al-Qaida'.

    This is in utter ignorance of several important, 'bottom line', facts.

    1.) The fact that exactly the same would have happened in Libya - and that is 100% certain - if the US/West would have refused to 'meddle' there too.

    Why?

    Because without Western intervention there (with support from specific Arab countries, of course), the Libyan regime would have managed to maintain itself in power for a while longer (because revolutionaries there were as disorganized as those in Syria), and in turn buy time for Islamist extremists to gain a foothold there too.

    2.) The fact that the AQ in Syria is NOT representing even 10% of Syrian insurgency (whether qualitatively and especially not quantitatively); that the AQ in Syria is NOT fighting against the regime, but against insurgency (meanwhile I'm at least not alone with this standpoint, see here); and even of the fact that the AQ actually ordered the ISIS to dissolve and get to hell out of Syria, etc., etc., etc.

    ...actually, it's getting boring to explain this all to you for 15th or so time. I simply don't see a reason why to repeat myself? Feel free to come back with lengthy explanations and your usual 'counter argumentation' but, please: have some mercy with my stomach muscles.

    **********

    Finally, you're wondering, 'what should the US do'?

    Let's see: Tehran is maintaining the Assadist regime in place with help of about US$1 billion in cash a month, plus deliveries of fuel (partially from Venezuela via Egypt) worth another US$500 million, and about 15,000 fighters consisting of approx. 3,000 IRGC, 4,000 Hezbollah, and balance of various Iraqi, Azerbaijani and Shi'a from elsewhere. These forces have proved crucial for stabilizing regime's situation in 2013. Although the regime is claiming to have about 100,000 people under arms, the fact is a) that this is not truth (simply because there are no indications for presence of as many pro-regime combatants), and b) that the above-mentioned, Iranian-sponsored forces are meanwhile bearing the brunt of the fighting and have proved something like 15 times more effective than regime's Syrian forces.

    Wow!

    This makes the answer very hard to even think about...isn't it?

    But, let me try: the insurgents have at least 35,000-40,000 organized within the IF; another 50,000 in various other groups. So, one needs no ground troops. Hunting all the various pro-regime groups with high-tech weapons is like shooting sparrows with guided missiles. So, there is no use of military intervention.

    What's left....?

    Hey, how about that with providing money for insurgents? Ah yes, the 'counter argumentation' is that some of this 'might end in wrong hands'.

    But right now Syrian insurgency is ending in 'right hands'?

    Don't make me laugh again, please.
    Last edited by CrowBat; 01-12-2014 at 09:11 AM.

  17. #457
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    You are of course absolutely correct and your man will respond that intervention is never ever justified. The only value his posts here have is too make sure one covers the need for the intervention in ones posts for completeness… which he will nit-pick anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    The same like in Libya, for example, and there was more than enough opportunity during 2012.

    Perhaps even less: with enough money, weapons and supplies on hand, the insurgents could've finished the Assadist regime already by late 2012 - in turn preventing the spread of the ISIS. And even later on: as of early 2013 they were still advancing and by April last year the regime was really within weeks of collapse. Instead, the West did nothing, offering the regime - i.e. the IRGC - more than enough time to organize (Iranian) intervention.

  18. #458
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    Dayuhan,
    I'm sorry, but I can't read your post without ROFL any more.

    [snipped for brevity]

    Don't make me laugh again, please.
    You have got him neatly summed up.

  19. #459
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    This was a relevant and outstanding find, thanks for posting. Wish it was mandatory reading for all the sabre rattling Congressmen who think U.S. intervention would result in something for the U.S. and the region as a whole.
    Glad you liked it. Maybe it helps to put some things into perspective, and I'm certain other conflicts are also full of lessons. While I do not advocate any policy a hard look at the history of civil wars and especially those with US involvement should give a strong baseline which can be modified by specific nature of the current conflict. Basically if most US efforts so far failed it is more likely that the current will fail too and if the specific civil war situation worse then the norme then the chances of success are not likely.

    To begin with, gratitude to Russia for the arms and the fact that the
    Communist Party, especially since the arrival of the International
    Brigades, looked capable of winning the war, immensely raised the
    Communist prestige. Secondly, the Russian arms were supplied via the
    Communist Party and the parties allied to them, who saw to it that as
    few as possible got to their political opponents.* Thirdly, by
    proclaiming a non-revolutionary policy the Communists were able to
    gather in all those whom the extremists had scared. It was easy, for
    instance, to rally the wealthier peasants against the collectivization
    policy of the Anarchists.

    There was an enormous growth in the membership of the party, and the influx was largely from the middle class-shopkeepers, officials, army officers, well-to-do peasants, etc., etc. The war was essentially a triangular struggle. The fight against Franco had to continue, but the simultaneous aim of the Government was to recover such power as remained in the hands of the trade unions. It was done by a series of small moves--a policy of pin-pricks, as somebody called it--and on the whole very cleverly. There was no general and obvious counter-revolutionary move, and until May 1937 it was scarcely
    necessary to use force. The workers could always be brought to heel by an argument that is almost too obvious to need stating: 'Unless you do this, the war will be lost'
    The financial muscle to arm a faction is still influential and was said to drive many moderates in the arms of more Islamist groups which enjoyed Gulf money. The big difference of course is the direct political control by that sponsor over a strong faction of the rebels, which is clearly lacking today. The whole movement seems to me far more fractured and be involved in considerable more vicious infighting.
    ... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

    General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
    Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935

  20. #460
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    You are of course absolutely correct and your man will respond that intervention is never ever justified.
    I thought the initial US intervention in Afghanistan was justified, and even sensible... at least until prolonged occupation and "nation-building" crept into the picture.

    I do think that to justify American intervention the following must be demonstrated:

    - A vital (or at least pressing) American interest
    - A clear, practical, achievable goal
    - In the case of a proxy or indirect intervention, a viable partner must be present
    - A viable plan. Yes, I know plans often go awry, but there needs to be one there at the start that is at least marginally convincing.
    - An exit strategy
    - Awareness and consideration of potential or probable adverse unintended consequences (likelihood of ####up).
    - The political will to finish what's started

    I've yet to see any evidence of any of these in the arguments presented so far for intervention in Syria.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    The only value his posts here have is too make sure one covers the need for the intervention in ones posts for completeness
    I've yet to see anyone "cover the need" for intervention in Syria, or even make a credible argument that intervention in Syria is a "need". I understand that some people want to intervene, but want and need are two different things.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 01-14-2014 at 09:50 AM.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

Similar Threads

  1. Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)
    By Beelzebubalicious in forum Europe
    Replies: 1934
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 07:59 PM
  2. Syria: a civil war (closed)
    By tequila in forum Middle East
    Replies: 663
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 06:35 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •