Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Dayuhan]

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.

I don't think any of us have reliable information on what Syrians think or want.

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?

I didn't "explain what a post Assad Syria would look like", I offered an opinion, which like all opinions on the future is speculation, not explanation. And no, you can't "know what would happen".

Given that there has never been a dominant leader or faction in the resistance to Assad, the resistance is highly fragmented, the disparate groups have widely divergent agendas, the Syrian military is Allawite-dominated and was never likely to turn against Assad in numbers, etc, ect... I see very little basis to assume that the resistance was ever likely to generate a clean win or a clear winner. That is speculative, but I've yet to see a credible argument to the contrary.

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....

How is that an argument for intervention? Everybody;s in the mess, we have to be there too? Even if we don't have a clear national interest at stake, even if we don't have clear goals, even if there is close to zero support for intervention on the home front?

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.

Yes, US intervention has a poor track record. How is that an argument for intervention?

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 would depend on what you plan to invest, in whom you plan to invest it, what specific goals you propose to achieve, etc. I have yet to see anybody lay out anything even vaguely resembling a coherent and plan for intervention.

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'.

No, the US reason was more like "we have no vital national interest at stake, no clear goal to achieve, no viable partner to work with, no plan that looks to have even a marginal chance of success, and zero political support for getting into another conflict in the Middle East.

What reason do we have to think that US intervention would have made the situation any better? Is it not just as likely that it would still be a mess, only it would be our mess? US intervention really does not have a stellar track record for making things better, why would you expect a positive outcome in this case?

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.

And you are now... Nostradamus? There is not one person on this planet who can state with 100% certainty what would have happened in Libya if there had been no intervention. I do not think that Hezbollah and Iran would be involved in Libya to the extent that they are in Syria.

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.

That's possible. It's also possible that the Libyan regime might have crushed the rebellion and stayed firmly in power. We don't know.

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.

So what? How is that an argument for US intervention?

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

No, I'm wondering what you think the US should do. Different thing.

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? [/QUOTE]

To whom do you propose sending money? "The insurgents"? Which ones?

Do you really believe that simply sending money would have significantly altered the course of events to date?

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

As long as it's not in our hands...

I'm a bit disappointed in the advocates for intervention here. We've heard "support the moderates" and "send money to the insurgents". On another thread I saw "flood the place with small arms". If those are the best plans the advocates for intervention can come up with, is it really very surprising that there's not much enthusiasm for intervention?