Syria: a civil war (closed)

[TheCurmudgeon]

There is no such thing as a common Islamic culture IMHO; there is a very different priority or value given to human rights and justice.

I would disagree with your assumption, or at least caution against it. Our legal system is based in large part on values from a Christian tradition. Confession and forgiveness are an integral part of that tradition. What is expected under Sharia law may be completely different.

Also in the Arab culture in general is a tribal tradition. Certain tribal practices, particularly in blood feuds, would dictate that a death by any member of the offending tribe is good enough. For example, If you and I are a member of tribe Davidbfpo and I kill someone in tribe Dayuhan it is not necessary for tribe Dayuhan to find and kill me. Killing you, or any other random member of Tribe Davidbfpo satisfies the debt created when I killed a member of their tribe. This goes back to the idea that the tribe is the important entity, not the individual.

My point is that I would caution against assuming that their culture and value system would automatically recognize a Truth and Reconciliation model used elsewhere or that, in the end, it would have the desired effect of allowing the country to put that part of their past behind them and move forward together.

[TheCurmudgeon]

As a personal opinion... I hate the idea, but I could see how a very limited operation to secure, remove, or destroy WMD or other weapons systems might be desirable in an extreme case. There would have to be a very clear mandate and a very clear insistence that it not transmute into efforts at "nation-building" or "stabilization". Again, opinion.

You acknowledge that the conditions in Syria, that there is an ongoing civil war, are different from Iraq yet your concerns about intervention are based almost solely on that paradigm. I think at this point it is incumbent on you to explain how a mission to secure weapons of mass destruction can turn into a nation-building exercise.

Both the policy and the possible means to execute policy seem to me relevant. Of course they are interlinked: it would be silly to adopt a policy that you haven't any effective means to implement.

Actually no. Nations adopt policies all the times as objectives and then work to create the ability to make that policy reality. Case in point, the policy to reduce fossil fuel consumption or reduce greenhouse gasses. We have no idea how to do this effectively, but our policy is to try.

Every society emerging from dictatorship has to confront the "justice vs reconciliation" issue in its own way. I'm not sure that "Islamic culture" is the key variable in Syria... as in Iraq, extended domination by a minority has left a mix that would be volatile no matter what the prevailing religion. In any event it's something Syrians will need to resolve: A TRC might be an option but I can't see it as something we can do to assist.

Actually no. There are distinct advantages in having outsiders administer the program. That way there is no ability for one side to claim that it was simply retribution and to continue the fight. That means they secure the prisoners and the courts. They are not in the jury box nor are they dictating the legal system. It is a check to ensure that the entire process is seen as legitimate and not a kangaroo court. An example would be Kenya:

Critics also question the credibility of the commissioners because of their connection to Moi’s regime and its gross human rights violations. Deputy chair of the commission, lawyer Betty Murungi, resigned saying that she found it difficult to fulfill her duties when the commission leader, Bethwell Kiplagat, faced accusations. Additionally, the inability of the commission to meet its November 11, 2011 report deadline only enhanced public skepticism. The task of reconciling the people of Kenya after the series of gross human rights violations that have occurred of the past half-century requires a stable commission and a government that the people of Kenya can believe in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tru...ssion_of_Kenya

An alternative method is demonstrated by El Salvador:

Established by the United Nations (instead of the Government of El Salvador), the establishment of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador (Comisión de la Verdad) (United Nations)[3] was part of Chapultepec Peace Accords to end the Salvadoran Civil War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_a...ion_commission

[TheCurmudgeon]

I think a more interesting question, from an American perspective, is who can act to secure the WMD's without risking exacerbating the situation? I don't believe America "can" (should). If others in the region share Syria's justification for having their Nerve Agents as a deterrent to Israel's nuclear weapons and the US, an ardent backer of Israel, acts to "secure" the weapons, it is easy for opponents to the US (Al Qaeda, Iran) to portray our action as denying the post-Assad regime with the ability to defend itself from an Israeli first strike.

Add to that the fact that the US has sold itself to certain powers in the region as their protector (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.) and therefore the justification for them not to have their own military capability, we have created a no win situation.

I suppose the Iranian's could offer to do it. Wouldn't that be interesting. Probably have to be the Russians if we could convince them it was in their best interest to act.

[davidbfpo]

Given how little information on Syria's CBW capability is in the open domain I expect watchers have been following closely anything that moves near the storage areas. Is the capability hollow?

The Economist has an article of value:http://www.economist.com/node/21559671

[Dayuhan]

Again I am left wondering why you make no attempt to initiate a particular line of discussion seemingly preferring to dissect and criticise the input of others.

I've stated repeatedly what I think should and should not be done, and why. What more do you want?

Every time I read one of your posts I am reminded of Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" speech of 1910:

The citation seems one you might read to yourself. The critic here is you: you repeatedly accuse those who actually hold responsibility of "incompetence", without ever stating what you think could or should have been done.

I can't see anywhere in this discussion where I've criticized anyone who's responsible for action. If I do at some point choose to do so, especially using terms like "incompetence", I'd hope to have the wit and the courage to lay out exactly what I think a competent course of action would have been, because I'd look a complete wanker if I didn't.

Who was incompetent, why, and what do you think should have been done? If a critic is going to toss words like "incompetent" around, shouldn't the critic at least be prepared to back the words up with answers to those questions?

[Dayuhan]

You acknowledge that the conditions in Syria, that there is an ongoing civil war, are different from Iraq yet your concerns about intervention are based almost solely on that paradigm. I think at this point it is incumbent on you to explain how a mission to secure weapons of mass destruction can turn into a nation-building exercise.

In two words, mission creep. Once you put boots on the ground, you have a capacity. Once the capacity exists, there's a temptation to use it for purposes beyond those of the original mission. That fear may be overblown, but if in any extreme case it seems necessary to send forces to secure, remove, or destroy weapons I think there will have to be some determination to resist any potential expansion of the mission. I agree that the fear is to some extent derived from Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't think that renders it entirely illegitimate, even if circumstances are very different.

Actually no. Nations adopt policies all the times as objectives and then work to create the ability to make that policy reality. Case in point, the policy to reduce fossil fuel consumption or reduce greenhouse gasses. We have no idea how to do this effectively, but our policy is to try.

There is a place for aspirational policy. Deploying military force in pursuit of aspirational policy is, IMO, generally a bad idea.

Actually no. There are distinct advantages in having outsiders administer the program. That way there is no ability for one side to claim that it was simply retribution and to continue the fight. That means they secure the prisoners and the courts. They are not in the jury box nor are they dictating the legal system. It is a check to ensure that the entire process is seen as legitimate and not a kangaroo court. An example would be Kenya:

If it doesn't look like retribution, it comes off looking like outsiders meddling to advance their own interests... which, realistically, is exactly what it would be.

The idea of the UN coming in and administering a "fair and balanced" resolution of the justice vs reconciliation issues is superficially attractive, but for innumerable reasons I can't see it happening. None of the sides involved would truest them, protecting those involved would be a massive headache, etc.

[Granite_State]

A post on CJ Chivers' website labels the IED as a game changer in Syria:

Once the armed opposition mastered the I.E.D. and spiked with bombs much of the very ground that any military seeking to control Syria must cover, and Syria’s army lacked a deep bench of well-trained explosive ordnance disposal teams and the suites of electronic and defensive equipment for its vehicles to survive, then the end was written. Because the Syrian army is ####ed. And its troop must know it.

http://cjchivers.com/ (can't seem to link to the individual post)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/wo...pagewanted=all

[Surferbeetle]

The self-induced fragmentation of Syria exposes a variety of ancient fault lines, provides potential opportunities for the Kurds (as well as the Turks if they are canny), and brings into question the received wisdom regarding the suitability of using military force to 'take' (aka destroy) a functioning economic center of gravity (in this case one which is almost 5,000 years old) vital to the viability of one's own nation.

• If Alawites are turning against Assad then his fate is sealed, Robert Fisk, MONDAY 23 JULY 2012, The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...d-7965154.html
  
• Kurdish people, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people
  
• Kurden in Syrien, In seiner Not berlsst Asad der PKK das Feld, NZZ, http://mobile.nzz.ch/aktuell/interna...eld-1.17402477
  
• Erdogans Angst vor einem neuen Quasistaat, Von MICHAEL MARTENS, ISTANBUL, 28.07.2012, FAZ, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/a...-11834693.html
  
• Economy of Syria, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria
  
• Aleppo, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo
  
• Aleppo, http://www.macalester.edu/courses/ge...eppo/index.htm
  
• Mandate of Heaven, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

[jcustis]

"Dayuhan my good man, I was reading up on some Syria stuff, putting thought to the way ahead and all that. I happened upon this thread and saw that you are holding yourself in good accord. Well done sir...well done." -Barack O.

[TheCurmudgeon]

The opposition, meanwhile, is winning territory, but its ranks are divided among some 100 groups with no clear political leadership. Even if Mr. Assad were to step down voluntarily, his Alawite military machine and its sectarian allies are likely to fight on, holding large chunks of territory.

Syria would then fracture, with the fighting deciding who controls what area — a larger version of Lebanon in the 1970s. There would be ethnic cleansing, refugee floods, humanitarian disasters and opportunities for Al Qaeda.

In Lebanon, a decade and a half of carnage was stopped only with the assistance of Syria and its army as peacemakers. A similar sectarian conflagration plunged Iraq into violence after the American invasion. There, a surge of American troops in 2007 helped stop the fighting. In Syria, there are no foreign troops to play such a role, and little prospect that any will come while the war lasts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/op...ml?ref=opinion

Could a Arab force like the one proposed by Tunisia successfully enforce peace when they themselves would be similarly divided?

[Entropy]

"Dayuhan my good man, I was reading up on some Syria stuff, putting thought to the way ahead and all that. I happened upon this thread and saw that you are holding yourself in good accord. Well done sir...well done." -Barack O.

Well played sir!

[JMA]

"Dayuhan my good man, I was reading up on some Syria stuff, putting thought to the way ahead and all that. I happened upon this thread and saw that you are holding yourself in good accord. Well done sir...well done." -Barack O.

Talking of BO (and nobody else):

[Surferbeetle]

Could a Arab force like the one proposed by Tunisia successfully enforce peace when they themselves would be similarly divided?

Hmmm....I do not speak nor read, Arabic, Farsi, Kurdish, Turkish, or Hebrew (which includes Farsi, Russian, Amharic (Ethiopian), and Yiddish) and as a result at least 60% of the ideas which drive this conflict are lost in the translation IMO.

60/40 is an important metric to keep in mind when making plans/bets/assigning probabilities regarding Assad's resilience (reliance upon poor external military advice), the managed growth of West Kurdistan, the reduction in the conveyance capacity of the Iranian supply chain, regional security concerns, and the interests of extra-regional patrons.

Shahnameh, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahnameh

Ferdowsi did not expect his readers to pass over historical events indifferently, but asked them to think carefully, to see the grounds for the rise and fall of individuals and nations; and to learn from the past in order to improve the present, and to better shape the future.

Ferdowsi stresses his belief that since the world is transient, and since everyone is merely a passerby, one is wise to avoid cruelty, lying, avarice, and other evils; instead one should strive for justice, honor, truth, order, and other virtues.

• Syrian regime keeps pressure on Aleppo, By Abigail Fielding-Smith in Beirut, Monavar Khalaj in Tehran and agencies, July 29, 2012 1:19 pm, Financial Times, www.ft.com
  
• Syria crisis: Humanitarian pressure grows, By Mark Doyle, 23 July 2012 Last updated at 11:26 ET, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18952706
  
• Crisis in Syria emboldens country's Kurds, By Wyre Davies, 27 July 2012 Last updated at 19:45 ET, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19021766
  
• China's influence in Syria goes beyond trade boom, Phil Sands, Aug 26, 2008, The National, http://www.thenational.ae/news/world...ond-trade-boom
  
• France to pressure Russia, China on Syria: Hollande, Reuters – 28 July, 2012, http://news.yahoo.com/france-pressur...162110777.html
  
• French Revolution, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

There is a school of thought, by the way, that France's financial overcommitment to the American Revolution was a contributing factor to the French Revolution....

[davidbfpo]

A useful collection of articles on:

on covert action and intelligence collection in and against Syria

Link:http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2...-war-in-syria/

[Dayuhan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/op...ml?ref=opinion

Two things strike me about this opinion piece...

First, all the discussion of developing a Syrian transition plan seems to revolve around the need to bring in Iran, Russia, Turkey, etc. There's very little mention of how to get Syrians involved, particularly of how to figure out who speaks for the opposition and its various factions. I can't see how a viable Syrian transition plan is going to be contrived by non-Syrians.

I also think it unlikely (to say the least) that Iran and Russia are going to be sitting down with the US to work out Syria's future any time soon.

Second, as in so many other places there's an assumption that there will be terrible "spillover" and dire impacts on the region as a whole, but no clear idea of what exactly is feared. It's difficult to address that issue without a better idea of what specific scenarios are anticipated and why exactly they are so dreadful, especially if the need to prevent this "spillover" is being cited as a justification for intervention.

Could a Arab force like the one proposed by Tunisia successfully enforce peace when they themselves would be similarly divided?

I personally doubt that such a force could even be assembled, let alone be effective, but I'm skeptical by nature.

[Dayuhan]

Talking of BO (and nobody else):

BO may well be voted out, but if he is it won't be over Syria, Libya, or any other foreign policy sideshow... the US economy is the issue over which the election will be contested.

I can't say I agree with everything he's done, either in domestic or foreign policy, but I'd hesitate to use words like "stupid", simply because I can't say with any great conviction that any alternative policy would have produced better results.

Seems to me that armchair critics who would accuse those with responsibility of stupidity, incompetence, or any other such thing really ought to back up those words with a clear explanation of what they think should have been done and why that course would have been better, lest they be suspected of spouting hot air...

[JMA]

Two things strike me about this opinion piece...

Yes it was interesting... now we all wait for you to honour the board with your opinion piece.

[JMA]

BO may well be voted out, but if he is it won't be over Syria, Libya, or any other foreign policy sideshow... the US economy is the issue over which the election will be contested.

Funny thing that.

I suggest that for millions around the world specifically in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria the impact of US meddling - be it of a military nature or merely diplomatic - is anything but a sideshow.

But USians just don't get it. You/they don't seem able to understand why (probably) more than half the world's population view the US and nobody and nothing else a the greatest threat to world peace.

Amazing that for a bunch of guys who always claim to have all the right answers you/they get it wrong so often.

[Dayuhan]

I suggest that for millions around the world specifically in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria the impact of US meddling - be it of a military nature or merely diplomatic - is anything but a sideshow.

Probably so, but the fact remains that if we're talking about who gets voted out or in, foreign policy is in most elections a sideshow, as it is in most democracies.

I would personally agree that the US meddles far too much and should meddle a great deal less, but of course my opinion doesn't mean much. If we're going by world opinion, though, the current administration would have to be considered a large improvement over its predecessor.

But USians just don't get it. You/they don't seem able to understand why (probably) more than half the world's population view the US and nobody and nothing else a the greatest threat to world peace.

There are some things Americans do understand. They understand that most of the world's people have an opinion on what the US ought to do, and that those opinions are widely divergent and often contradictory. They understand that no matter what they do or don't do, an awful lot of people will be irate, either because the US didn't do what they wanted or because the US did do what they wanted and it didn't turn out the way they expected, in which case of course the US did it wrong. Americans understand that every armchair general and online critic on the planet knows exactly what the US should do and should have done at any given point to make everything right. Americans also understand that for the most part the armchair generals and online critics are full of hot air and have no useful ideas of their own to offer.

By far the best way to address the perception that the US is a threat to peace would, IMO, be to mind our own business and interfere in the affairs of others to the smallest possible extent... but of course some people will see that as a threat as well.

Of course what's been done hasn't always worked out well, though anyone who would attribute that to "incompetence" really ought to provide a course of action that might have worked out better. In many of these cases there isn't and wasn't any course of action that would be at all likely to make matters better, another excellent reason to mind one's own business and interfere in the affairs of others to the smallest possible extent. Of course the armchair generals and online critics will always bluster about what should have been done, which is easy to do from a secure distance and with no need to take responsibility for the outcome of action..

Amazing that for a bunch of guys who always claim to have all the right answers you/they get it wrong so often.

And here I was thinking you were the one with the answers, and hoping someday you'll tell us what should have been done...

[TheCurmudgeon]

I suggest that for millions around the world specifically in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria the impact of US meddling - be it of a military nature or merely diplomatic - is anything but a sideshow.

The US is not the only country involved in meddling, or diplomacy, or aid, or whatever you want to call it.

In Syria alone there are the Turks, the Saudis, and the Isaerlis.

The Turks are supporting the rebels in Syria ... except for the Kurds who they fear could use a Kurd enclave in Syria to support the PKK in order to stage attacks on Turkey essentially opening up a new front.

Then there are the Iranian's who see one of their few allies failing for reasons they don't quite understand. The rest of the Arab Spring countries fall into a narrative that the people of dictatorial anti-Islamic regimes that have been propped up by the West are now falling as the people take back control. Syria doesn't neatly fit that narrative, so the Iranians believe the fault lies with external interference - that the majority of Syrians support the regime. They see this as a unholy alliance between the Saudis (those Arab Sunnis) and the West. As a result Terran sends support to Assad including weapons and advisers. There is the potential that if Assad has no other options the Iranians may directly intervene.

"Given the issues that Iran attributes to Syria's turbulence, it is believed that Tehran will do its utmost to maintain the status quo, even it entails risking military involvement."

(http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13924)

Then there are the Israelis who would prefer Assad to a more Islamic state. What they are doing now is hard to tell but they are certainly looking at military options should the security of Syrian WMD's become questionable. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/157799

Everyone with the capability meddles in order to protect their own interests.

Amazing that for a bunch of guys who always claim to have all the right answers you/they get it wrong so often.

We have the same failings as everyone else; we NEED to have the events fall into a narrative that supports our national identity. We should be smarter than that, but we are as human as the next meddler.