I don't know about this name change as it kind of indicates that the problem lies within Syria itself when we know that the situation has been allowed to deteriorate due to the inability of Europe to flex any muscle and the sheer gutlessness once again of the US to chance a face off with Russia and China. Once more we have a case study of inept foreign policy from North American and European countries.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
JMA,
Point taken, but I do feel that the key players in Syria are Syrians. They are the actors, everyone else is a reactor.
Now a few reflections.
I had missed that the original location of the street protests were in places known for their loyalty to the regime, what was the regime's reaction? Brutality, with arrests in Deraa, prisoners who were tortured and threats made to their families. Observers consider that 2m have been displaced inside Syria, with the UN saying 200k are refugees and others 450-500k. Given the regime's brutality one can only imagine what the families of the 70k detained feel (far greater scale than in Iran's Green Protest), let alone an estimated 35k who are missing.
Syria faces a protracted struggle. A civil war that currently sees the armed opposition in a defensive mode and the regime having enough troops, including a large number of retained conscripts and called-up reservists alongside a force of dedicated loyalists estimated at 75k, for "fire-fighting" or mobile oppression.
One well-informed observer considers that the opposition has 20% of the population in support and the vast majority are 'sitting on the fence". Syria is an urban country, with a few large cities. That is why watchers considered the street protests in Aleppo recently were significant and the regime's determination to stifle any dissent in Damascus.
For reasons maybe lost on most here there is a strong regional belief in conspiracy, not cock-up, as an explanation for what is happening; even when it is simple they look for a conspiracy.
Perhaps some of this belief lies in demography? Over half the population are aged 15-29yrs and 3.2% over 65yrs; quite different from Western Europe.
Additionally there is the promise of the 'Arab Spring', a regional Arab search for legitimacy in government and in Syria especially a demand to have a real democracy and human rights.
davidbfpo
Jamestown Foundation, 1 June 2012: Syrian Tribal Networks and their Implications for the Syrian Uprising
Sunni Arab tribalism has a significant socio-cultural, political, and security impact on the current uprising in Syria, with strong implications for post-Assad governance formation. Tribalism has fueled unrest throughout Syria, including in places such as Dera’a, where mass opposition demonstrations began on March 15, 2011, in the eastern city of Deir al-Zor on the Euphrates River, and in the suburbs of Homs and Damascus, where some of the fiercest combat between the Syrian military and armed opposition groups has occurred. Millions of rural and urban Syrians express an active tribal identity and tribal affiliation is used extensively to mobilize the political and armed opposition against the Assad government as well as to organize paramilitary forces in support of the Syrian regime. Both the Syrian opposition and the Assad government recognize the political importance of the tribal networks that cross Syria and extend into neighboring countries. As a result, the support of Syria’s tribes is a strategic goal for both the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition.....
Just say no
The respected academic commentator, Joshua Landis, has a FP column today under the title 'Stay Out of Syria: Foreign intervention to topple Bashar al-Assad's bloody regime risks a fiasco on par with Iraq and Afghanistan':http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...yria?page=full
He ends with:AM today the BBC Radio had John McCain advocating intervention, yes there is a clear moral case, but I concluded then 'Just say no' and this article confirms that judgement.The United States can play a role with aid, arms, and intelligence -- but it cannot and should not try to decide Syria's future and determine the victors of this conflict. If Syrians want to own Syria in the future, they must take charge of their revolution and figure out how to win it. It is better for Syria, and it is better for America.
davidbfpo
That is a great find, davidbfpo. I was looking at some photos from the Houla massacre earlier. When one sees children that have been murdered that way it provokes a visceral reaction (in me anyway), but raw emotions have no place in geopolitical decision-making. Decisions like these have to be made rationally. Even if you are inclined to believe that the US should take more of a role in policing the world Mr. Landis makes some salient points about how much good the US could actually do over there, and what it is likely to cost.
When we hear about, or especially when we see pictures of, dead children it is natural to want to do something about it. The problem is that for some the go to reaction is to call for military intervention. We do have the most powerful military in the world, bar none. Removing Al-Assad would probably be fairly easy but, as Mr Landis points out, that is not the problem, it is the aftermath. It was the aftermath of both Iraq and Afghanistan that created so much pain for us and I have seen no compelling reason to believe that the aftermath of any intervention in Syria would be any less painful. Loyalists of the current government will almost certainly form an insurgent movement once Al-Assad is removed. This will be especially true if Al-Assad manages to escape being killed or captured. This could be exacerbated by the lack of a coherent opposition which means that a post revolution government might not have control of a significant portion of the militias that remain after the war. Some of these militias are going to want to take revenge against minorities who they believed were loyal to Al-Assad. At least some of these minorities will feel compelled to join the insurgency just for self-preservation (as happened in Iraq, particularly among the Shia) thus strengthening the insurgency.
Western intervention would speed the overthrow of the Al-Assad regime but might very well strengthen any insurgency as loyalist forces are rapidly overwhelmed and opposition forces find themselves in control of the state before they can consolidate control over their own forces. Paradoxically, a slower overthrow of the government (i.e. without direct Western intervention) may actually weaken any insurgency that forms as loyalists have time to defect (which they will as money dries up and popular unrest increases) and other minorities are given the opportunity to prove that they are not especially loyal to Al-Assad. Diehard loyalists may also be more inclined to stand and fight against a homegrown revolution than they would be against the overwhelming military might of a Western power. That is preferable to them joining an insurgent movement.
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”
Terry Pratchett
David maybe you can help decipher this Landis 'doublespeak'?
He said (as you quoted):
"The United States can play a role with aid, arms, and intelligence -- but it cannot and should not try to decide Syria's future and determine the victors of this conflict."
How does the Landis man produce a thought pattern where aiding, arming and providing intel to one side does not 'try to decide Syria's future'?
David the Landis article confirms nothing other than the US and European approach has been frozen in indecision and in fear of a face with Russia and China. Now (in the style of the classic coward) they can now wring their hands and claim that the situation is too advanced/complex/etc risk a physical involvement in Syria. This while their incompetence and failure to act decisively in the early stages has led to the current situation.AM today the BBC Radio had John McCain advocating intervention, yes there is a clear moral case, but I concluded then 'Just say no' and this article confirms that judgement.
Q&a
David maybe you can help decipher this Landis 'doublespeak'?
Q. He said (as you quoted):A. There is an assumption by those advocating a direct, military intervention it is in short a "fix", Landis disagrees and this sentence meets the demands of the "do something" school, with a minimum level of support for the opposition. That alone will not be decisive.The United States can play a role with aid, arms, and intelligence -- but it cannot and should not try to decide Syria's future and determine the victors of this conflict
Q. How does the Landis man produce a thought pattern where aiding, arming and providing intel to one side does not 'try to decide Syria's future'?
A. The USA, Landis's primary if not sole audience, all too often sees issues as starkly black and white. It believes - at the start - it can decide.
davidbfpo
Not seen as you do. I think Landis is unable to connect the dots that by supplying one side (or a favoured faction) with aid, arms and intel it can and will play a role in deciding Syria's future.
Is Landis stupid? I don't think so more like he is a non-interventionist to the point that he is reduced to making incoherent comment... like the following:
Landis writes like a journalist (at least in this article) and by no stretch of the imagination can be called a 'respected academic commentator' and this quoted article is an insult to the intelligence of the reader.Anyone who believes that Syria will avoid the excesses of Iraq -- where the military, government ministries, and Baath Party were dissolved and criminalized -- is dreaming
and
If anyone tells you they are going to build democracy in Syria, don't buy it.
and
The argument that the United States could have avoided radicalization and civil war in Iraq by toppling Saddam Hussein in 1991 is unconvincing.
Last edited by JMA; 06-09-2012 at 10:22 AM.
I doubt that fear of Russia is much a factor, and China isn't even remotely in the picture. The fear is of getting sucked into another interminable "nation building" mess. On the American political side there's also substantial fear of an upcoming election and an electorate that's in no mood to put up with another overseas adventure.
I'm not sure "frozen in indecision" makes it either. The decision not to commit military force was made early on and remains in place. How is that indecisive?
When did it ever make sense for countries to push into other countries' business at the first sign of trouble? Is staying out of other people's fights cowardice or common sense? Is any critical interest involved for the US or any other potential intervening party that would justify "physical involvement"?
It's far from evident that any course of action available "in the early stages" would have achieved anything but civil war, even if it had been a politically viable option, which for the US it was not.
“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
You again?
Look stick to your back and forth with Ray (he seems to be enjoying the game)... I'm not going to take the bait.
As a parting shot ... there are always a basket of options for just about every situation and the earlier you exercise those options the more likely the possibility that a civil war can be avoided. Most people know and understand this.
Now is there any 'smart guy' out there able to explain why a civil war in any country should be avoided at all costs (certainly not stoked by providing one side or tuther with the weapons of war)?
Last edited by JMA; 06-09-2012 at 02:13 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks