Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by JMA

Amazing... opinion stated as if fact.

Why would that amaze you, of all people? When you say things like:

the US/Europe don't have the balls to stare down Russia and China

to cite but one example among many, is that not opinion stated as fact?

I've said this before, but anything written here - by you, me, or anyone else - should be assumed to be the author's opinion, unless specifically stated otherwise and appropriately referenced. That's common sense, given the nature of the venue.

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

To be honest, I am not sure what point Dayuhan is trying to make.

The point is that the primary restraint on US or European action is lack of interest, not lack of UN approval or fear of anything the Russians or Chinese might say or do. If the US and/or Europe really wanted to intervene and saw intervention as in their interests, they'd make a way. They don't. The lack of UN movement actually seems to me to be rather congenial for the US: we can blame the Russians and Chinese for obstructionism and we have an excuse not to do something we have no interest in doing.

I don't agree with this:

If there was a UN resolution that authorized force I would venture to say that the US along with NATO would provide assets including troops.

at all. I don't think the US would send troops no matter what the UN said, because I don't think the US has any desire to send troops. There's no realistically viable plan for military intervention (unless someone has one and is keeping it secret), there's no evident perception of compelling national interest, a great deal of home-front political resistance. Given the mood of the American public at this point, leading the country into another war would be something close to political suicide, an unattractive prospect for any administration.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by JMA

Don't buy that. Think 'precedent'.

If you mean you do not buy it, fine. Your prerogative. If that's an attempt to tell me not to buy it, you're wasting your time; I've already bought it and put in the garage...

You of all people should realize the US doesn't pay much heed to precedents -- you've certainly lambasted them enough over the issue. To no particular avail, I might add...

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

If there was a UN resolution that authorized force I would venture to say that the US along with NATO would provide assets including troops.

Well, as they say, never say never -- but I'll be surprised if that's a correct assessment. In the unlikely event it does occur, I suspect the commitment would be miniscule...

The UN is not irrelevant and none of the major players are going to act without at least an arguable pretext of a legal justification. The US had that in Iraq. I don't see Iraq as setting any precedent that can be applied to Syria.

No the UN is not irrelevant. Neither is its approval or disapproval going to cause the US to stop or go in something the US has determined to do. Rightfully so IMO. That means their relevance is relative...

Getting UN 'approval' is desirable but not mandatory. We used the UN to attempt to attract other Nations to the effort in Iraq and to give protective cover to those politicians who needed it for their domestic audience, no more.

Hopefully no one else will see Iraq as setting any precedent that can be applied to Syria...

What independent actions other nations take without legal justification is, or should be, part of the consideration that goes into the debate at the UN.

Okay. That's fine -- as long as everyone realizes tha the US will play by that rule only so long as it suits and can be beneficial.

To be honest, I am not sure what point Dayuhan is trying to make.

Can't understand why, it was perfectly clear to me. Thus my post to which this sub thread applies.

In any event, he has expanded on his original comment. It should be quite clear now -- and I agree with his take on the issue. Syria would be side show and we have other interests at this time. Elections, for instance...

[jmm99]

From TZ, Syrian general among 1,000 refugees fleeing to Turkey (3 Aug 2012):

About 1,000 Syrians, including a defecting brigadier-general, have fled to Turkey in the past 24 hours to escape intensifying violence in their country, a Turkish official said on Friday.

The latest group brought the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey to 45,500, up from 44,000 at the end of July, said the official, who asked not to be named. At least 25 military generals are among those who have taken refuge in Turkey.

Nothing unusual here. TZ has been running similar stories for months.

Of more interest is Abdullah Bozkurt's opinion piece, Turkey to shape Syrian army in post-Assad era (3 Aug 2012):

Considering that the only effective force keeping Syria together is the armed forces, Turks, Arabs and Americans have agreed on keeping the Syrian army pretty much intact to prevent major disarray in Syrian governance in the post-revolution era after the fall of embattled president Bashar al-Assad -- which looks more imminent.

The agreement will keep Turkey’s southern neighbor from plunging into a civil war along ethnic and sectarian lines while providing the necessary tools for the transitional government to restore stability and maintain public order during the elections and constitution-making process.
...
Turkey and its Arab/Western allies also plan to incorporate the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the largest armed opposition group operating throughout Syria, into the Syrian military after the departure of Assad. The FSA is composed of mostly defectors from the Syrian military and equips itself with arms it seized from Syrian military munitions depots and stockpiles. Some of the arms also come from black market dealings with the support of Turkey, the Gulf countries and the US. The FSA is led by Col. Riad al-Asaad, who is situated in Turkey and coordinates attacks on regime loyalists from there. I spoke on Sunday over a dinner to Ahmet Davutoğlu, who gave me the tally of total defectors so far: 26 generals, 47 colonels and 130 officers of various ranks have fled to Turkey. ... (and much more in article).

Ahmet Davutoğlu (Wiki), currently making nice with the Iraqi Kurds and not so nice with the Iraqi government.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by jmm99

Of more interest is Abdullah Bozkurt's opinion piece

Interesting indeed.

Turks, Arabs and Americans have agreed on keeping the Syrian army pretty much intact to prevent major disarray in Syrian governance in the post-revolution era after the fall of embattled president Bashar al-Assad -- which looks more imminent...

Turkey and its Arab/Western allies also plan to incorporate the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the largest armed opposition group operating throughout Syria, into the Syrian military after the departure of Assad.

That sound as if the Turks, Arabs, and Americans expect to be calling the shots and making the decisions after (if) Assad leaves. I wonder what the basis for that (seeming) expectation is, and how accurate it will prove to be...

This:

The FSA is composed of mostly defectors from the Syrian military and equips itself with arms it seized from Syrian military munitions depots and stockpiles.

reinforces earlier suspicions that external supply of arms has not been the critical enabling factor for the FSA.

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

That sound as if the Turks, Arabs, and Americans expect to be calling the shots and making the decisions after (if) Assad leaves. I wonder what the basis for that (seeming) expectation is, and how accurate it will prove to be...

Whether or not those three parties are going to exert as much influence in Syria in the near future remains to be seen, as you say. But I would assume the idea is to avoid a repeat of Bremer’s De-Ba'athification program. Seems like apples and oranges to me, though, as that pogrom came before rather than after sectarian strife.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by ganulv

I would assume the idea is to avoid a repeat of Bremer’s De-Ba'athification program.

I would assume so, and also that the comments are meant to encourage further defections... "jump ship now and have a place waiting in the New Syrian Army".

Originally Posted by ganulv

Seems like apples and oranges to me, though, as that pogrom came before rather than after sectarian strife.

Also because Bremer was actually running Iraq at the time. I personally hope that the post-Assad order in Syria will be shaped by Syrians, not foreigners and certainly not Americans.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Ken White

If you mean you do not buy it, fine. Your prerogative. If that's an attempt to tell me not to buy it, you're wasting your time; I've already bought it and put in the garage...

You of all people should realize the US doesn't pay much heed to precedents -- you've certainly lambasted them enough over the issue. To no particular avail, I might add...

That is exactly what I have been saying - thank you - about US foreign policy - it is bipolar - one wakes up every morning and wonders which US you will be seeing today.

[wm]

Buried in the Wikipedia link that Mike shared

Originally Posted by jmm99

Ahmet Davutoğlu (Wiki),

is what I believe is a significant consideration regarding the lack of direct intervention. I suspect that the Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, are concerned about neo-Ottomanism. Allowing Turkey to be the only (or principle) benefactor of the probable winner in Syria (which is not Assad btw) is a step toward the position found in the Wikipedia article and quoted below:

Originally Posted by Ahmet Davutoğlu

"I have said that Turkey as a nation-state is equal with any other nation-state of our region whether it is small in population or area. We don't have any hegemony on anyone. Rather what we are trying to do is to contribute to the establishment of a permanent peace in our region. If by order they mean is Pax Ottomana, Pax in the meaning of order, we are trying to establish a order, it is not wrong to say such thing".

A response to overt Turkish involvement in Syria could well be to stir up Kurds, for whom the Turks have such a great love , along the eastern and southeastern borders of Turkiye Cumhuriyeti. Given that possibility, I think the Turks have chosen to wait and try to shape the post conflict government along the lines suggested by Mike's cited Bozkurt story, with the US playing mediator to ensure that the Saudis' worries about neo-Ottomanism do not get out of hand.

BTW Iran might have to worry about someone stirring up some of their significant minority groups should it choose play an active role in Syria. The CIA Factbook points out about 18% of the country are Turkic (Azeris and Turkmens primarily) and another 10% are Kurds.

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Also because Bremer was actually running Iraq at the time.

Nominally! Most surreal thing I have learned in a long time, partly because it is happening a couple of hour’s drive from my house: Bremer re-retired to a village in Vermont to become a landscape painter.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Why would that amaze you, of all people? When you say things like:


to cite but one example among many, is that not opinion stated as fact?

I've said this before, but anything written here - by you, me, or anyone else - should be assumed to be the author's opinion, unless specifically stated otherwise and appropriately referenced. That's common sense, given the nature of the venue.

There is a point you seem to miss...being that when others make a statement of opinion you demand they substantiate their opinion... while when you make such statements if challenged you demand that you be proved wrong.

It is puerile high school level debating/discussion tactics. Don't you think it's time you grew out of it?

[jmm99]

Hey Wm,

I definitely agree that the US should keep a low profile in what is primarily a Middle Eastern problem complex to be solved by Middle Easterners. The Turks have been pushing some public diplomatic buttons in accord with their expressed desires to develop Arab (Saudi) and Russian partnerships.

E.g., TZ (22 Jul 2012), Syria crisis unlikely to mar Turkish-Russian partnership:

Russia and Turkey widely differ in their positions regarding finding a solution to the 16-month crisis in Syria, but there is little indication that the violence in Turkey’s southern neighbor will cast a shadow over the growing partnership between Turkey and Russia.
...
In his speech, Putin emphasized that the volume of bilateral trade between Russia and Turkey has grown by 20 percent, exceeding $34 billion. He stated that Russia will construct a nuclear plant in Akkuyu, and praised the efficiency of the High Level Cooperation Council set up between the two countries. Putin further noted that 3.5 million Russian tourists had traveled to Turkey in 2011, thanks to the quality of service experienced in the nation and the removal of visa requirements.

Both leaders agreed that they should continue working to achieve their goal of $100 billion in bilateral trade. Significant steps have been taken to improve mutual investments. To this end, during his visit to Moscow, Erdoğan’s met with the CEO of Sberbank, which has purchased Denizbank German Gref. Russia and Turkey will also cooperate on the Göktürk satellite project, due for completion by late 2013. A Third High Level Cooperation Council was also scheduled, which Russian President Putin and members of his cabinet will travel to Turkey on Oct. 15 to attend.

By comparison, Syria is a much smaller (and weaker) fish in Putin's frying pan. E.g., TZ (3 Aug 2012), Syria reaches oil deal with ally Russia:

Syria has reached an agreement with ally Russia to secure much-needed fuel as a delegation of ministers sent by President Bashar al-Assad asked Moscow to help alleviate the effects of sanctions on the war-torn country.
...
Under the deal, Syria will export its crude oil to Russia in exchange for refined oil products, which Damascus sorely needs to keep its economy and military running.

"Russia wants to help the Syrian people," Syrian Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Qadri Jamil told reporters in Moscow on Friday.

"We will deliver our oil and receive gasoline and fuel oil; it will be a barter," he said, adding that Syria is producing about 200,000 barrels per day.

However, Syria's Oil Minister Said Hneidi said production was less than 140,000 barrels per day.
...
Likewise, Syria is one of Russia's last Middle East footholds and hosts a Russian repair and maintenance facility on its coast. Damascus bought nearly $1 billion in arms from Moscow last year, or some 8 percent of all of Russia's arms exports.

The Kurdish problems (all four states, Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, have their own versions) are regularly addressed in TZ. Davutoğlu's visit to Iraqi Kurdistan and meeting with Barzani has generated some excitement. E.g., TZ, 1 Aug 2012, Davutoğlu, Barzani pledge cooperation in north Syria:

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu raised the issue of the Syrian government's loss of control over territory with Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani on Wednesday, and both officials vowed to consider any attempt to exploit the power vacuum in Syria a “common threat.”

“Any attempt to exploit the power vacuum by any violent group or organization will be considered a common threat that should be jointly addressed. The new Syria should be free of any terrorist and extremist group or organization,” read a joint statement Barzani and Davutoğlu's offices released following talks in Arbil.

The Iraqi government went ballistic (diplomatically); and the Turks slapped back (diplomatically). From TZ, 3 Aug 2012:

Iraq summons Turkey envoy to protest over visit:

Iraq made a formal protest to Turkey's envoy in Baghdad on Friday after the Turkish foreign minister made a surprise visit to an oil-rich Iraqi city claimed by both the central government and the country's autonomous Kurdistan region.

The episode, the latest in a series of diplomatic spats and ###-for-tat summonings of envoys between the neighboring countries, is likely to worsen already strained relations.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu had travelled to Kirkuk on Thursday after visiting the regional president in Arbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan.

But Iraq's foreign ministry accused Turkey of violating its constitution with the visit, saying that Davutoğlu had neither asked for nor obtained permission to enter Kirkuk.

A junior minister at Iraq's foreign ministry had handed Turkey's charge d'affaires a protest letter on Friday, a strongly-worded statement from the foreign ministry said.
...
Relations between Iraq, close to Shi'ite Iran, and Sunni Muslim regional power Turkey, were tested after US troops pulled out of Iraq last year and the government immediately tried to arrest one of its Sunni vice presidents.

He fled first to Kurdistan and later to Ankara, where he was given refuge.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan then traded public insults. ...

Turkey hits back at Iraq in Kirkuk visit controversy:

Turkey has lashed out at the Iraqi government for criticizing Ankara for interference in Iraqi affairs after Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu paid a surprise visit to an oil-rich Iraqi city claimed by both the central government and the country's autonomous Kurdistan region without consulting the Iraqi authorities first.

Turkish Foreign Ministry summoned Iraq’s Ambassador in Ankara to protest Baghdad’s subsequent statements after Davutoğlu’s visit to the contested city. Sources said the statements Iraq made after Turkish foreign minister’s Kirkuk visit are “unacceptable.”

Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioğlu told the Iraqi envoy that Turkey is taking every step in an open way and that it has no hidden agenda. Sinirlioğlu warned Iraqi authorities to be careful while making statements.

Turkey’s protest came after Iraq delivered a formal diplomatic note to Turkey's envoy in Baghdad on Friday. ...

The larger context is explained in Orhan Miroglu's column (TZ, 3 Aug 2012), Davutoğlu’s visit to Arbil:

There are those who argue Turkey has been caught unprepared for the Middle Eastern Spring and does not have a game plan for it.

Just as was the case in the past, Turkey has a game plan for today and everything is being played according to this plan.

In this context, it can be argued that Turkey was not caught unprepared for the invasion of Iraq that started with the Gulf wars and came 12 years later, but it managed to become one of the major players in the new process.

As a result of the choices Turkey made during the rebuilding of Iraq, the traditional codes of Turkish foreign policy were largely abandoned.

This policy essentially preached friendship and solidarity with the Kurds, who obtained a new status in the region as a result.

The outcome was tremendous. The relations established with Kurdish leaders such as Massoud Barzani who would have been portrayed as feudal tribal leaders until two years ago helped to ease the tension created by the conflict in Turkey and contributed greatly to the social thaw.

If there were not the new and conscious political choices made regarding the Kurdish region in northern Iraq and Turkey in the 1990s and if Turkey continued to maintain its harsh attitude against its domestic Kurdish population, the Kurdish issue would have been in a worse position today. ...

We'll see how the new (since ca. 2001) and gentler Turkey is viewed by the Arab powers. So far, its public actions and statements (viewed from this armchair) speak less to a neo-Ottomanism than to a Neo-Hittitism:



For a more in-depth presentation on the Turkish government's more recent approach to its Kurdish problem, see Karaveli, Reconciling Statism
with Freedom - Turkey’s Kurdish Opening (2010) (HT to Ted for the cite and his discussion).

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

I've heard of CJ Chivers reporting before, IIRC from Libya, but don't normally follow him.

...what can be seen is that as the government has been pressured it has incrementally stepped up its campaign by freeing up heavier weapons...The attacks are, in all likelihood, and in a strictly military sense, unsustainable.

For Mr. Assad’s military, scattered in the field in a pitched fight against a strengthening foe, these are bad omens. And they only part of the picture. Add in attrition, add in defections, add in the suspect loyalty of certain commanders and units, add in the psychological and physical tolls of months of sustained head-to-head fighting, factor in the vulnerability of an extended supply line over terrain where the anti-government forces are active and growing more bold, and the far-flung Syrian military looks much less strong than it did only a few months ago, and in a much more precarious position than all the breathless accounts of its continued capacity for organized violence, or the appearance of a fresh weapon system, would tell.

Link:http://cjchivers.com/post/2860544688...pons-watch-the

The video of a helicopter gunship dropping an unguided bomb is strange IMO; that suggests to me in my faraway "armchair" the gunship is afraid to go low and engage, with it's normal weapons and their ammunition stocks are low if a "dumb" bomb was dropped.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Wyatt

I dont understand why you seem to revel in perceived failures of our military or the wars they get tasked with. We havent done everything right but we certainly have not failed at everything either. You lost your war and your country, musta sucked. No one here makes any attempt to drag you through that over and over again.

You must work on your comprehension skills.

My comments seldom if ever relate to the US military as a force.

US soldiers have been placed in a position to be humiliated by the politicians on a regular basis.

On balance on after the fact results - due to political decision making - US foreign policy results have been largely negative. This is sad.

What is even more sad is that the double whammy response by many USians that somehow having among the most inept politicians in the world is worn like proof that the military will always be subordinate to the civil authority and that to reach general staff in the US one has to have - not a labotomy - to sacrifice their balls. Somehow these things are good?

Rhodesia was not my country but I was happy then and remain happy now to have served there in their time of need.

I will pass on responding to the childish retort about losing the war.

In fact the war was going well right up to the political settlement and the numbers of insurgents were swelled a majority of semi-trained or untrained rabble which we were dispatching on an industrial scale. After the war they (ZANLA) admitted that their losses were unsustainable. It was Jimmy Carter who saved their ass by refusing to recognise the Muzorewa government. But then you knew all this didn't you.

Now can we get back to the current foreign policy cock-up of the US as it plays out in Syria?

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

The Russians aren't going to stick their necks out for Assad either, in any way beyond verbiage.

Oops!

Syria reaches oil deal with Russia

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Surferbeetle

No more than a soldier...

Complexity, the new word for the old concept of multi-dimensional problems which require multi-dimensional solutions....and 'foreign viewpoints'

Don't forget the multidimensional components of analytical tools such as ASCOPE, DIME, PMESII, SWOT, PESTLE (google search PESTLE diagram), etc.

It seems that certain people seek out complexity when often it is not there.

Look at a map and fill in the Sunni/Shia domination/control and see what you come up with and whether you obtain a greater clarity on this subject.

[wm]

Mike
The 2 Zaman articles from your last post --Syria crisis unlikely to mar Turkish-Russian partnership, Syria reaches oil deal with ally Russia--point out what could be an interesting dilemma for Turkey. The Turks are are making nice with Russia. But they have the opportunity to keep the Russia-Syria oil deal from being worth much if they close the Bosporus/Hellespont/Dardanelles to shipping carrying Syrian crude or Russian refined products. I don't think that will happen because of the recent rapprochement with Russia and the softening line with the Kurds you also noted in your post. But I think it can still be a trump card/bribe for the Turks to help push Assad out the door to a nice retirement in the Russian Federation. In other words, a Syrian oil vendor gets the Russian oil business if it "helps" Assad leave and Russia gets Syrian oil business if it takes him in.

The Iraq/Kurdistan/Turkey three way is a different story. I see that pretty much as Orhan Miroglu's piece describes it--a way to put more pressure on Shia Iraq and Iran by courting the Kurds. And of course there's oil in Kirkuk to transit through a Turkish pipeline.
I like the Neo Hittite construct as well. Too bad the Turks don't have the same kind of technological advantage the Hittites had (iron weapons against everyone else's bronze)!

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by JMA

There is a point you seem to miss...being that when others make a statement of opinion you demand they substantiate their opinion... while when you make such statements if challenged you demand that you be proved wrong.

In some cases that's true. In this debate, for example, I've maintained that the US has not seriously considered and should not consider military intervention because:

- No viable plan for such intervention has been proposed
- There's no evident perception of compelling national interest
- There's no significant home front political support for intervention.

None of these are susceptible to proof, because it's logically impossible to prove an absence. It can be disproved by demonstrating the presence of any of those things, but it can't be proved. As I've said, I'll gladly reconsider if anyone can demonstrate the presence of any of those elements.

On the other hand, the contention that US policy is "incompetent" could be effectively substantiated by an explanation of what superior (or simply "competent") alternative policy existed. The claim that the US refrained from intervening out of fear of Russia or China could be effectively substantiated by evidence suggesting that the US ever wanted to intervene but backed away, or some hint of what the Russians or Chinese might have done that the US feared.

Anyone who accuses a national leadership of incompetence but can't (or is afraid to) explain what a "competent" course of action would have been is in a poor position to accuse anyone else of failure to substantiate opinions. Glass houses, stones, and all that.

[jmm99]

wm,

My thoughts parallel yours about the Turkish-Russian partnership and the Russian-Syrian oil deal. The TZ commentators have been pretty much in line that Russia has to get something tangible to arrive at a negotiated settlement. Adding the Iraqi Kurds to the list of satisfied parties enhances the prospects for that settlement. As you note, there are lots of oil reserves in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Assad, however, is very damaged goods (Levrov says they don't want him). I expect in the final diplomatic picture he will be absent - expendible goods. If that final diplomatic solution avoids the three likely pograms (Alewite, Christian and Shia), expending Assad and his thugs would seem well worth it.

The Hittites were pretty good at diplomacy as well.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by JMA

Oops!

Syria reaches oil deal with Russia

They aren't sticking their necks out in any way, there's no risk to them there. They buy a small quantity of oil (which they don't need) and send back refined oil products. The terms of the deal aren't mentioned but I'd guess they are favorable to the Russians. How would that constitute sticking their necks out?

Originally Posted by JMA

What is even more sad is that the double whammy response by many USians that somehow having among the most inept politicians in the world is worn like proof that the military will always be subordinate to the civil authority and that to reach general staff in the US one has to have - not a labotomy - to sacrifice their balls. Somehow these things are good?

I would say that civilian supremacy over the military is a very good thing, and I would not ever want to see the US (or any nation) go to war because anyone, civilian or military, felt it necessary to swing their balls in public.