Syria under Bashir Assad: crumbling now?

[Tukhachevskii]

...and how they enter into the strategic tapestry that is currently unravelling in the region. Post-Assad Syria (should there be one) could very well have knock on effects for Iraqi and Turkish Kurds especially if the, admittedly small number, of Syrain Kurds are able to make some gaisn for their own ends.

In Syria, role of Kurds divides opposition

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Rex

It is a lot more than a few, covert deals aren't really possible, and the concern is genuine (even if one feels it is misplaced). I don't think massive ground intervention is a terribly likely outcome, however.

Covert deals in that part of the world are always possible, but of course not guarunteed. A lot of things are genuine concerns, and chemical weapons is one of them, but it must be viewed in the overall context of the situation to evaluate if it is worth the potentially much larger political risk to our interests if we put a large U.S. or coalition presence on the ground. We can't afford to get tunnel vision and simply see the chemical weapon warning light.

Most importantly it doesn't take thousands of troops to secure facilities unless you're defending them against large conventional forces. I think the assumption is enough troops to secure the site(s) long enough to neutralize, not park thousand of troops in country indefinitely.

We consistently fail when we attempt to prevent a group from getting weapons whether small arms, IEDs, and WMD (except for a successful operation that stopped the Nazi's from getting the bomb). It is almost equivalent to stopping the flow of illegal drugs. While oversimplifying for purpose of making a point, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The same line of reasoning applies to IEDs, WMD, etc. We can't simply focus on the weapon, we need a strategy for mitigating the threat (the people that will use it), which get backs to my larger point we have to appreciate/understand the larger context or we may make the threat worse.

[Dayuhan]

I don't envy any American politician who decides he needs to sell a military intervention to neutralize Syrian WMD to the American public. The old adage about boys crying "wolf" does come to mind...

[TheCurmudgeon]

No one sold intervention in Libya. The American public doesn't care as much as you think.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Of course there are risks involved in letting things play out and dealing with whatever emerges, but there is no risk-free course of action, and I can see why decision makers would think that course of action presents less risk than any commitment to trying to direct the outcome.

Any action (or inaction) we take present risks AND by its very nature, constitute an attempt to direct an outcome (or at least prevent other outcomes). The question is more how much are we willing to risk for which desired outcome.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

A better path than what?

A regional war that we would get sucked into.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Assad is clearly no longer able to keep a lid on things, and I see no point in trying to restore his ability to keep a lid on things...

I don't think it is that clear that he could not have kept a lid on things. He probably had the ability prior to other interested parties providing support. Remember, this has been going on for some time and Assad has only recently resorted to real military might like air strikes. Had Turkey and the Saudis not gotten involved he might have little problem keeping a lid on things.

This is no longer a civil war, it is a proxy war. Containment and damage control are our primary interests. Actions (or inaction) we take should, IMO, be based on those two interests.

[ganulv]

“Machine gun in right hand. Cell phone in left. On duty on the gun-truck’s machine gun, at 80 miles an hour into Aleppo, checking messages along the way.” [LINK]

[jmm99]

PPK first; Assad next; Wait on Syria, push for Kandil:

In both the Turkish and American capitals, the policy decision to intervene in Syria has been delayed pending further review of logistical and military contingencies. The fact that there is no appetite on the part of the Syrian opposition for direct outside intervention, with the exception of limited protection in terms of no-fly zones or buffer areas to shelter civilians, has also contributed to this delay.
...
Over dinner last week with senior editors of print media in Ankara, Deputy Prime Minister Blent Arın signaled that Turkey is pondering an operation in the Kandil Mountains in northern Iraq, where the PKK headquarters are located. The government has already obtained authorization from Parliament to launch a cross-border operation in northern Iraq. But Ankara is keenly aware that it needs to coordinate this action with the US, not only for political cover against an international reaction to a military incursion into Iraqi territory, but also to secure logistical support, in particular intelligence, from the Americans. ... (more in article)

Regards

Mike

[TheCurmudgeon]

Today, winning the hearts and minds of the Kurdish people living in all four neighboring countries is the most important objective for Turkey. As most Kurds are frustrated with the decades-long PKK terror wreaking havoc on their daily lives, they will largely welcome Turkish troops taking out hard-core militants so that peace and stability can finally come to Kurdish areas.

Wait on Syria, push for Kandil

Interesting slant on things. Wonder if this thought pattern is behind Turkey's lack of interest in the Kurds of northern Syria?

[davidbfpo]

Don't worry I am sure the Kurds along Syria's northern border will have their day with the Turkish military. The reported move of thousands of PKK fighters into Syria, before May 2012, as helpful "guests", may not have been a wise move.

[jmm99]

Taking Bozkurt literally:

Today, winning the hearts and minds of the Kurdish people living in all four neighboring countries is the most important objective for Turkey. As most Kurds are frustrated with the decades-long PKK terror wreaking havoc on their daily lives, they will largely welcome Turkish troops taking out hard-core militants so that peace and stability can finally come to Kurdish areas.

one might conclude that he is looking forward to a NeoHittite-NeoMitanni Concordat.



Has the Middle East changed that much in 3000+ years ?



Turkey has, as well, to look out for the millions of Turkmen in Syria, Iraq and Iran (HT to wm for that one). Thus, Turkey's Foreign Minister Davidson's (another HT to wm for that translation) visit to Iraqi Kurdistan may have had a multiple symbolism.

[Bill Moore]

Today, winning the hearts and minds of the Kurdish people living in all four neighboring countries is the most important objective for Turkey. As most Kurds are frustrated with the decades-long PKK terror wreaking havoc on their daily lives, they will largely welcome Turkish troops taking out hard-core militants so that peace and stability can finally come to Kurdish areas.

It is difficult to make sense of the various sources and their views on reports of Kurdish maneuvering in Iraq and Syria. It is important to point out that while apparently most Kurds want a Kurdish State, the Kurds are not united. They have numerous political parties, the KDP and PUK being the largest ones, and their relationship with the PKK varies depending on the realpolitik issue in currency.

Key issues that I think bare watching:

- Arab Spring emboldens Kurdish ambition for nationalism (now or never view)

- The various Kurdish parties will likely struggle with each other for power creating opportunities for exploitation by state actors in the region.

- Turkey making direct deals for oil with Kurds without going through Baghdad, which infuriates Baghdad.

- Kurdish peshmerga preventing the Iraqi Army from sealing the Syrian-Iraqi border.

- Maliki is pro-Assad, while Barzani is pro-resistance and is offering support to the resistance from Iraq. Where does Iran stand on this? What actions will they take?

- PKK is increasing it level of activity in Turkey, while KDP and Turkey appear to be reaching an agreement, yet reports of the KDP and PKK making a secret deal.

- Same as it has been for years, the Kurds will be a player, but they will be leveraged by other non-state actors, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Israel, and probably the U.S.. Without unity how much power will the Kurds ultimately have?

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/14...-oil-deal.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...maliki-barzani

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

No one sold intervention in Libya. The American public doesn't care as much as you think.

I'd say Obama made some effort to sell the intervention, ably assisted by media: for a while it seemed like you couldn't look at a TV without seeing a reporter on the ground in Benghazi reporting on the imminent sack of the city and interviewing people who were about to be slaughtered. The lack of a similar media-safe threatened zone is, I suspect, a major reason for the lack of enthusiasm for intervention in Syria. The Anglo/French willingness to take at least a nominal lead role was also critical in the sale.

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

Any action (or inaction) we take present risks AND by its very nature, constitute an attempt to direct an outcome (or at least prevent other outcomes).

Is the current strategy an attempt to direct an outcome or an acknowledgement that our capacity to direct outcomes is limited?

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

The question is more how much are we willing to risk for which desired outcome.

I'd also ask whether we have or at any point had an available move that had any meaningful chance of providing our desired outcome. I've yet to see any suggestion that we did, and in the absence of one I'm not inclined to be very critical of the course adopted, which seems to me not unreasonable.

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

A regional war that we would get sucked into.

That would be an adverse outcome, but what available course would have prevented it? Diving into a mess out of fear that one might in the future get sucked into it seems a course of questionable wisdom.

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

I don't think it is that clear that he could not have kept a lid on things. He probably had the ability prior to other interested parties providing support. Remember, this has been going on for some time and Assad has only recently resorted to real military might like air strikes. Had Turkey and the Saudis not gotten involved he might have little problem keeping a lid on things.

I'm not sure that fits the chronology very well... seems to me the lid was well and truly off well before any outside parties got involved in any meaningful way, nor is it clear that outside involvement has at any point been a major driver of the conflict... not that the US could at any point have prevented outside parties from getting involved.

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

This is no longer a civil war, it is a proxy war.

Based on what evidence? Certainly outside parties are involved, on both sides, but I've seen no evidence or suggestion that outside involvement has reached the point where either Assad or those who oppose him could reasonably be said to be anyone's proxy. What's the actual extent of the outside support? Could either side not survive without it? All I've seen suggests that accelerated defections from the armed forces account for more of the rebel's gains than outside assistance. Of course we don't have inside information, but is there any evidence to suggest that outside assistance is a make-or-break factor for either side?

[Surferbeetle]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Key issues that I think bare watching:

- Arab Spring emboldens Kurdish ambition for nationalism (now or never view)

- The various Kurdish parties will likely struggle with each other for power creating opportunities for exploitation by state actors in the region.

- Turkey making direct deals for oil with Kurds without going through Baghdad, which infuriates Baghdad.

- Kurdish peshmerga preventing the Iraqi Army from sealing the Syrian-Iraqi border.

- Maliki is pro-Assad, while Barzani is pro-resistance and is offering support to the resistance from Iraq. Where does Iran stand on this? What actions will they take?

- PKK is increasing it level of activity in Turkey, while KDP and Turkey appear to be reaching an agreement, yet reports of the KDP and PKK making a secret deal.

- Same as it has been for years, the Kurds will be a player, but they will be leveraged by other non-state actors, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Israel, and probably the U.S.. Without unity how much power will the Kurds ultimately have?

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/14...-oil-deal.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...maliki-barzani

I would add:

President Mam Jalal Talabani and the PUK,

• Wikipedia on Talabani, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_Talabani
• Wikipedia on PUK, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot...n_of_Kurdistan

Mohammed Saleh Muslim and the PYD

• Wikipedia on PYD, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra...n_Party_(Syria)
• Syrian Kurd party says Turkey should not fear its rise, By Isabel Coles
  DUBAI | Tue Aug 7, 2012 8:05am EDT, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8760HN20120807

Feyli Kurds

• Wikidpedia on the Feylis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feylis

The KRG and it's boundaries, in particular Kirkuk

• KRG by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdist...nal_Government
• Kirkuk by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkuk

Free-rider-ship problem, for all involved but with emphasis on the extraregional patrons of Turkey, Iran, & Kurdistan

• Wikipedia on Free-rider-ship, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

[Entropy]

Landis on Assad's Kurdish Strategy:

Assad’s Kurdish strategy appears to be to help the PKK to take control of the Kurdish regions of Syria in the North East. His aim is to hurt both the Free Syrian Army and Turkey, which are leading the opposition against him. In general, his strategy is to weaken the Sunni Arabs of Syria.

and

The Kurdish parts of Syria will undoubtedly become the focus of the power struggle that is emerging in the region over Syria. Sunni Arabs and Turks will line up against it. Shiite forces will be inclined to encourage Kurdish independence if only to hurt the Sunni Arabs by playing minorities of every stripe against the against the FSA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the US.

But what should the Kurds do? All Kurds are looking to take advantage of the collapse of central authority in Syria. They see this as an historic opportunity to press for their freedom and national rights. But how hard should they press and how fast? Should they work with Turkey against Assad or should they fight Turkey and ally with Assad? Is this a moment for caution or for audacity?

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am not a UN analyst, but if the Kurdish area of Syria and the Kurdish area of Iraq were to break away and form an independent state, could they request a UN Peace Keeping presence?

[AdamG]

Originally Posted by ganulv

“Machine gun in right hand. Cell phone in left. On duty on the gun-truck’s machine gun, at 80 miles an hour into Aleppo, checking messages along the way.”

Also

An insurgent army which claims to be up to 15,000 strong is being coordinated from Turkey to take on President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, which risks plunging the region into open warfare.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-on-Syria.html

and

What Russia taught Syria: When you destroy a city, make sure no one -- not even the story -- gets out alive.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._the_messenger


and

BEIRUT (AP) — The Syrian regime threatened Monday to use its chemical and biological weapons in case of a foreign attack, in its first ever acknowledgement that it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stressed, however, that Damascus would not use its unconventional arms against its own citizens. The announcement comes as Syria faces international isolation, a tenacious rebellion that has left at least 19,000 people dead and threats by Israel to attack to prevent such weapons from falling into rebel hands.

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-says-che...103925213.html

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by AdamG

Awesome!

[AdamG]

Budget brand tactics #8783 : how to draw fire from a sniper in Homs, Syria

[Rex Brynen]

Based on what evidence? Certainly outside parties are involved, on both sides, but I've seen no evidence or suggestion that outside involvement has reached the point where either Assad or those who oppose him could reasonably be said to be anyone's proxy. What's the actual extent of the outside support? Could either side not survive without it? All I've seen suggests that accelerated defections from the armed forces account for more of the rebel's gains than outside assistance. Of course we don't have inside information, but is there any evidence to suggest that outside assistance is a make-or-break factor for either side?

Agreed. Outside assistance at this point probably counts for 5% or less of rebel resources, although it is starting to increase.

The "civil war vs proxy war" dichotomy that people throw around is an odd one, since the vast majority of civil wars involve some sort of external involvement. In this case, Gulf, Turkish, diaspora, and (to a lesser extent) Western aid to the opposition will likely speed the end of the Asad regime, but they are hardly the cause of its impending demise.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Agreed. Outside assistance at this point probably counts for 5% or less of rebel resources, although it is starting to increase.

Sending weapons is of no use if there are no fighters willing or able to use the weapons... material aid can assist a rebellion, but it can't create one. I suspect that ultimately Assad's fate will depend on his ability to retain the loyalty of his armed forces, not on any outside involvement.

It might be claimed that outside introduction of certain weapons could be decisive in an insurgency. That claim has sometimes been made for the US introduction of MANPADS during the Soviet-Afghan war, though that claim has been credibly challenged. I've seen no suggestion that any such game-changing weaponry has been introduced in Syria.

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

The "civil war vs proxy war" dichotomy that people throw around is an odd one

Odd, but useful: there's always propaganda value, for either side, in claiming that your opponent is a tool of the manipulative furriner.