Syria: a civil war (closed)

[AdamG]

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has for now abandoned efforts for a diplomatic settlement to the conflict in Syria, and instead it is increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down the government of President Bashar al-Assad, American officials say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/wo...t.html?_r=2&hp

[Dayuhan]

Omitting vast quantities of extraneous material and trying to concentrate on the point....

Originally Posted by JMA

In such circumstances - as are found in Syria right now - the best plan is to 'kill the snake' by a blow to its head.

One explosion - like what happened - has almost achieved that.

Deliver the blow to the head, and what do you expect to happen? Even assuming the blow is accurate and effective, you're left with a power vacuum, a number of local factions fighting to fill that vacuum, and various meddling neighbors trying to advance their own interests by supporting and arming their preferred factions... in short, the same vicious civil war that you were trying to prevent.

Do you really think that an attack on Assad or the core of his military at any point in this process would have resolved this mess favorably? If so, why? Granted it's a moot point, since even you agree the US shouldn't do it and we all know nobody else would have... but even on a hypothetical level I have to wonder what you think the outcome of such action would be.

Originally Posted by JMA

Instead the smart guys - aka idiots - have allowed the rebels to be armed to the extent a viscous civil war with ongoing t*t-for-tat butchery is now inevitable because they don't have the smarts to comprehend the simple solution.

What "simple solution" would that be? If it's really that simple, surely you can describe it.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by JMA

Opinion: The killings of opposition groups – men, women and children – by the minority Syrian regime must stop.

Fact: Then we have Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who stand to get scolded if Syria burns.

Fact: A new Sunni Arab government in Syria will change the balance in the Middle East significantly.

Fact: There are many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in Syria.

Fact: The insurrection in Syria has been bubbling for more than a year with increased intensity over the recent months.

Opinion: The longer the insurrection lasts and the more violent it becomes the more difficult it will be to impose a peaceful settlement in Syria.


Opinion: If the Alawites lose power they will become a persecuted minority (and also on the receiving end of some serious payback). Will they submit to democratic elections willingly? No.

Opinion: The Alawites should therefore be removed from power by the quickest means as this will end the current killing and also reduce future payback effected on the Alawites.

Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

Who should do this?

Opinion: Anyone other than the US … or US assets placed under direct French or Brit military command.

Anyone other than the US able to do this?

Opinion: No. Military intervention is therefore unlikely as the Germans and the Dutch have already surrendered (no doubt with more to follow).

Why should the US not lead the intervention?

Opinion: Because (based on their track record) they will cock it up.

Where to from here?

Opinion: wait and see.

So at the end of this rant, and by the way I agree with your facts and most of your opinions, your only recommendation is to wait and see? If that is the case, then you are in agreement with most of the world leaders who don't want to get involved, many for good reasons.

The U.S. is over extended as it is, and the last thing we need is another quagmire, especially during election year, so Assad will probably act aggressively until after our election in NOV, then he'll have to reassess.

I'll go out on limb and offer an opinion on a potential course of action. Assuming there will be an international intervention, the lead nation makes a secret deal with elements of the Syrian military it can co-opt, and then facilitates a hard strike against those that can't enabling a coup of sorts. Simultaneously the intervening nation will have to negotiate a cease fire with the insurgents/rebels to facilitate the establishment of a new government (they will have to give the military leadership some breathing space to re-establish control). Russia and China will be marginalized if someone pursues this course of action, so the world will have to unite against them diplomatically to limit their potentially hostile influence towards the intervening states. Iran's relationship with elements in Syria will have to be severed, and of course AQ in Syria will have to be hunted down and killed while simultaneously building the peace. Not to mention these things never go as planned, but if another nation wants to try.........

I hope you realize that I am describing a no win scenario unless Murphy is taking an extended vacation. I hate watching innocents getting killed as much as the next person, but I suspect intervention would result in more, not less blood shed.

[Dayuhan]

Fact: Then we have Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who stand to get scolded if Syria burns.

The extent to which a Syrian descent into disorder would negatively impact the neighbors is debatable and variable. Some might lose, others might gain.

Fact: There are many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in Syria

.

There are also those with vested interests in disrupting the status quo in Syria, notably the Sunni majority and their GCC backers, who will not ask anyone's permission before attempting to advance their own interests. Since the status quo has effectively been disrupted and is not likely to return, there are a wide range of domestic and regional actors who are trying to shape the new status quo in their favor.

Opinion: The longer the insurrection lasts and the more violent it becomes the more difficult it will be to impose a peaceful settlement in Syria.

Agreed, partially... with the reservation that I can't imagine who you expect to "impose a peaceful settlement". Could you clarify? Is the imposition of a peaceful settlement a goal? For whom?

Opinion: If the Alawites lose power they will become a persecuted minority (and also on the receiving end of some serious payback). Will they submit to democratic elections willingly? No.

Agreed, though I'd add that they are not likely to submit to being removed from power by any non-democratic means either. They will fight, and as a last resort may try to secede.

Opinion: The Alawites should therefore be removed from power by the quickest means as this will end the current killing and also reduce future payback effected on the Alawites.

How do you propose to remove them, having noted above that they will fight to the best of their ability to assure that they aren't removed? If you can remove them how do you propose to prevent the resulting power vacuum from spinning into civil war as local actors and their foreign backers try to fill it?

Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

Should not be armed by anyone? How does one prevent the Saudis, Qataris, etc from arming the rebels?

So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

This is the core of the issue: how do you apply that pressure?

Who should do this?

Hard to say without a clear idea of what pressure is to be applied, which is the missing link in all this.

Opinion: Anyone other than the US … or US assets placed under direct French or Brit military command.

Agreed, vigorously.

Anyone other than the US able to do this?

Opinion: No. Military intervention is therefore unlikely as the Germans and the Dutch have already surrendered (no doubt with more to follow).

Agreed.

Why should the US not lead the intervention?

Opinion: Because (based on their track record) they will cock it up.

That, again, would depend on the still unknown nature of the proposed intervention. Hard not to cock something up if nobody knows what's to be done.

Where to from here?

Opinion: wait and see.

Agreed; that was my position from the start.

Overall, the weak points are:

No clear statement of what form of intervention is proposed (as always).

No clear idea of how the post-intervention environment can be controlled or managed to the advantage (or just to avoid the disadvantage) of the intervening party.

No clear idea of who could intervene, particularly given the reality of domestic political will in democratic countries. Since we all reach the conclusion that there is no likely or feasible intervening party, the whole discussion seems moot and we go back to "wait and see", which is not the worst place to be... better than being up to our necks it the mess.

[davidbfpo]

An interesting view on the situation inside Syria, especially why such a "hammer blow" to the regime with three top officers being killed was so quickly officially announced:http://www.opendemocracy.net/rita-fr...ating-damascus

I'd missed this event:

Fighter planes bombed the funeral procession of the martyr Abdul Rahim Samour in Sayyida Zainab, located on the road to Damascus International Airport, resulting in a further 100 people being killed.

I would suggest that for the general TV viewer film of Syria has now passed the point of "More die in Syria, next item please". Akin to the impact here of atrocities being reported in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which often were the first item on the BBC and gradually became a blur. Reinforcing the Conservative government's policy on peacekeeping, which was often far from robust and I'd better stop as I get annoyed on that period.

[AdamG]

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) – The Syrian regime acknowledged for the first time Monday that it possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said it will only use them in case of a foreign attack and never internally against its own citizens.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/s...els/56425402/1

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Posted by JMA

So at the end of this rant, and by the way I agree with your facts and most of your opinions, your only recommendation is to wait and see? If that is the case, then you are in agreement with most of the world leaders who don't want to get involved, many for good reasons.

The U.S. is over extended as it is, and the last thing we need is another quagmire, especially during election year, so Assad will probably act aggressively until after our election in NOV, then he'll have to reassess.

I'll go out on limb and offer an opinion on a potential course of action. Assuming there will be an international intervention, the lead nation makes a secret deal with elements of the Syrian military it can co-opt, and then facilitates a hard strike against those that can't enabling a coup of sorts. Simultaneously the intervening nation will have to negotiate a cease fire with the insurgents/rebels to facilitate the establishment of a new government (they will have to give the military leadership some breathing space to re-establish control). Russia and China will be marginalized if someone pursues this course of action, so the world will have to unite against them diplomatically to limit their potentially hostile influence towards the intervening states. Iran's relationship with elements in Syria will have to be severed, and of course AQ in Syria will have to be hunted down and killed while simultaneously building the peace. Not to mention these things never go as planned, but if another nation wants to try.........

I hope you realize that I am describing a no win scenario unless Murphy is taking an extended vacation. I hate watching innocents getting killed as much as the next person, but I suspect intervention would result in more, not less blood shed.

That was a rant?

Bill, I stated those 550 or so words in March this year. I would invite you and others to sit down and draft something similar rather than just nit-pick what others bother to contribute.

I explained the "wait and see" comment of mine as follows:

"... as I am powerless to do anything about it all I can do is "wait and see".

Get it?

The other point you (and others - all USians I might add) don't seem to understand is that I am not calling for US direct military intervention. The US can't do this stuff right. What I am saying is that if Britain, France or others had decided to act the US should have been willing to supply them logistically. Nothing more.

So I wish you and others would stop suggesting that I have been calling for armed intervention from the start when clearly all I have stated is that armed intervention is the last resort... and then not by the US.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Omitting vast quantities of extraneous material and trying to concentrate on the point....

Deliver the blow to the head, and what do you expect to happen? Even assuming the blow is accurate and effective, you're left with a power vacuum, a number of local factions fighting to fill that vacuum, and various meddling neighbors trying to advance their own interests by supporting and arming their preferred factions... in short, the same vicious civil war that you were trying to prevent.

Do you really think that an attack on Assad or the core of his military at any point in this process would have resolved this mess favorably? If so, why? Granted it's a moot point, since even you agree the US shouldn't do it and we all know nobody else would have... but even on a hypothetical level I have to wonder what you think the outcome of such action would be.

What "simple solution" would that be? If it's really that simple, surely you can describe it.

LOL... pass.

I do suggest though that you try to cobble together a personal statement of some 500-600 words on the Syrian situation. Not holding my breath.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

The extent to which a Syrian descent into disorder would negatively impact the neighbors is debatable and variable. Some might lose, others might gain.

There are also those with vested interests in disrupting the status quo in Syria, notably the Sunni majority and their GCC backers, who will not ask anyone's permission before attempting to advance their own interests. Since the status quo has effectively been disrupted and is not likely to return, there are a wide range of domestic and regional actors who are trying to shape the new status quo in their favor.

Agreed, partially... with the reservation that I can't imagine who you expect to "impose a peaceful settlement". Could you clarify? Is the imposition of a peaceful settlement a goal? For whom?

Agreed, though I'd add that they are not likely to submit to being removed from power by any non-democratic means either. They will fight, and as a last resort may try to secede.

How do you propose to remove them, having noted above that they will fight to the best of their ability to assure that they aren't removed? If you can remove them how do you propose to prevent the resulting power vacuum from spinning into civil war as local actors and their foreign backers try to fill it?

Should not be armed by anyone? How does one prevent the Saudis, Qataris, etc from arming the rebels?

This is the core of the issue: how do you apply that pressure?

Hard to say without a clear idea of what pressure is to be applied, which is the missing link in all this.

Agreed, vigorously.

Agreed.

That, again, would depend on the still unknown nature of the proposed intervention. Hard not to cock something up if nobody knows what's to be done.

Agreed; that was my position from the start.

Overall, the weak points are:

No clear statement of what form of intervention is proposed (as always).

No clear idea of how the post-intervention environment can be controlled or managed to the advantage (or just to avoid the disadvantage) of the intervening party.

No clear idea of who could intervene, particularly given the reality of domestic political will in democratic countries. Since we all reach the conclusion that there is no likely or feasible intervening party, the whole discussion seems moot and we go back to "wait and see", which is not the worst place to be... better than being up to our necks it the mess.

Ok, now I wait for you to post a personal position statement so that interested others can dissect it.

[ganulv]

managed to run a piece today stating that the Syrian military is throwing all but everything it has against the opposition forces with ever diminishing returns as well as a piece on how the current situation in Baghdad reveals how overstated the previous claims of opposition advances had been.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by JMA

LOL... pass.

But of course...

Originally Posted by JMA

I do suggest though that you try to cobble together a personal statement of some 500-600 words on the Syrian situation. Not holding my breath.

What I've already said on this thread has been consistent to the point of repetitiveness, and I don't see any particular point in repeating it yet again. Maybe later I can go back and cut and paste the key points for your review; I'm going to ride the bike before the afternoon rains come in.

If were to claim that there were some magic bullet, some option for intervention that could be or could have been taken to resolve this situation, I would of course be obliged to say exactly what I think should be or should have been done. I'd look a complete ass if I didn't explain what I thought should be or have been done, especially if I'd accused others of incompetence for not doing it.

I've made no such claim. You have, notably absent any explanation of what you think should have been done and what effect you think that action would have had.

I have said, ad nauseam, that I do not see any available military intervention option that would meet even the most minimal criteria for probability of success, avoidance of extended commitment, probability of unintended adverse consequences, and domestic political acceptability. If anyone else has such an option great: let's see it. Claiming that an option exists without specifying what it is... not very convincing.

There are non-military options, some of which have been used. I don't think they have much chance of success, largely because, as you say, they are not backed by any credible and politically acceptable military option and everyone in the picture knows it.

It would be wonderful if some outside deus ex machina could simply "fix" Syria. That capacity isn't there. Even if the political will existed, which it doesn't, the effort would be likely to make matters worse and to leave the self-appointed deus ex machina up to their eyeballs in the sheisse.

In short: there are no critical US interests at stake, there's no domestic political support for military intervention, no viable options for military intervention have been presented, non-military options are on the table but probably won't accomplish anything, and there's an excellent chance that anyone who tries to drain that swamp will end up drowning in it. Therefore US involvement IMO needs to be at most peripheral. If anyone else wants a go, best of luck.

I could explain that in more detail, but is it really needed?

[davidbfpo]

JMA within Post 487 stated:

What I am saying is that if Britain, France or others had decided to act the US should have been willing to supply them logistically. Nothing more.

IMHO there has been no desire, let alone intention or will in France or the UK to 'act' in Syria. Nor do either nation or in concert have the capability to intervene against Syrian state opposition.

The mooted plans to evacuate nationals from Syria, with a flotilla of ships, are hardly impressive:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...vacuation.html

Added 26th June:UK MoD deny the flotilla is for evacuation purposes:http://www.blogs.mod.uk/defence_news...july-2012.html

I am not sure if 'others' exist, except for Turkey and they may have been more concerned about border issues (refugees, incursions and Kurds), than regime change.

[wm]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

JMA within Post 487 stated:

IMHO there has been no desire, let alone intention or will in France or the UK to 'act' in Syria. Nor do either nation or in concert have the capability to intervene against Syrian state opposition. The mooted plans to evacuate nationals from Syria, with a flotilla of ships, are hardly impressive:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...vacuation.html

I am not sure if 'others' exist, except for Turkey and they may have been more concerned about border issues (refugees, incursions and Kurds), than regime change.

Turkey seems unlikely to intervene either based on this 24 July statement by Erdogan found at http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erd...&NewsCatID=338

Turkey has taken all necessary precautions within the framework of international law vis--vis [Syrias] hostile attitude. Turkey has changed its rules of engagement in order to prevent an incident similar [to the June 22 downing of a Turkish jet]. If Syria does not take lessons from these developments and continues its hostile attitude, Turkey will not avoid retaliating, Erdoğan said yesterday evening at the fifth Traditional Fast-Breaking Dinner for Foreign Mission Chiefs and Ambassadors in Ankara

Retaliation is very different from intervention.

Besides, if this story is true, a big chunk of Turkey's defense budget will be consumed trying to build an ICBM.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

IMHO there has been no desire, let alone intention or will in France or the UK to 'act' in Syria. Nor do either nation or in concert have the capability to intervene against Syrian state opposition.

Agree on the desire, intention, and will. Capability is hard to assess without some idea of what action is being suggested, which of course has not been provided.

As far as I can determine, the suggestion is that American leaders are "incompetent" because they failed to provide support for undetermined actions by unspecified "others", none of whom ever showed any desire to act. I must have that wrong, though, because it makes no sense.

[TheCurmudgeon]

What if our only objective is to begin a dialog with the rebels, who, if successful, will begin to form a new government? What are our options for initiating contact and providing limited assistance to build good will with them? Or should I just assume that this is already happening.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

IMHO there has been no desire, let alone intention or will in France or the UK to 'act' in Syria. Nor do either nation or in concert have the capability to intervene against Syrian state opposition.

That's right and that's why nothing happened. Thankfully the US did not decide to get involved otherwise we would see a worse situation right now. It is too late now for military intervention so I wish the US and Europe would just shut the .... up.

What's the guess on the final body count, anyone?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by JMA

What's the guess on the final body count, anyone?

Does it matter if the dead are a result of our (outsiders') action or inaction?

[Bob's World]

The blood of patriots...

Any Syrian solution, no matter how bloody, is better than any external solution.

No way to prevent the Saudis, Iranians and Turks (to name but a few highly interested neighbors) from attempting to shape the mix, but no reason for the US to get the blame pinned on us for what emerges by attempting to shape a "US approved" solution.

The artificial structures of power shaped post-WWI by the Europeans, and post-WWII by the US are being thrown off by populaces across the Middle East. We can attempt to mitigate the violence, but we should really resist the temptation to shape the outcomes.

We need to remember that these are efforts to remove what exists, much more than they are to elevate any single ideology or form of government. These revolutions are the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. There will be a great deal of jockeying for power, retributions, and "Influence grabs" by a wide range of state and non-state actors.

The artificial systems of stability we helped shape and nurture could not endure. This is a natural cleansing of artificial political ecosystems, much like a forest fire is a cleansing of a forest ecosystem. We have a scorched moonscape before we get to a healthy new ecosystem. That is how nature works.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

Does it matter if the dead are a result of our (outsiders') action or inaction?

Not for the dead, they can't tell the difference. Both sides will fight their war with the conditions that they find themselves in, outsiders or not. The unfortunate people in the middle would likely die at a greater rate with large foreign intervention whether that be accidental or turning fence sitters into fighters ala' iraq.

To me it looks like a bar fight. You could stand back and watch, and the black eyes and loose teeth that result could hardly be considered your fault. Or, you jump in for the party without any need to and the fun could quickly turn into bad time.

Worrying about second and third order responsibility to the point of taking a first order role seems like a bad idea when you have to search for the reason.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Wyatt

Not for the dead, they can't tell the difference.

kind of my point ... what difference does it make, they are just as dead either way.

Originally Posted by Wyatt

Worrying about second and third order responsibility to the point of taking a first order role seems like a bad idea when you have to search for the reason.

There are a multitude of reasons; connecting with the new leadership, learning the techniques of the insurgency, having a presence if/when WMD's are found (OK, we have a ####ty history on this, but we can't keep getting it wrong forever). The question isn't do we have a reason. The question is "do the reason's we have justify the risk? What level of risk are we willing to accept in exchange for what level of benefit?" The answer does not always need to be, "just don't get involved."