Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[AdamG]

Western intelligence agencies observed Syrian units making advanced preparations for the potential use of chemical weapons, including loading trucks with ready-to-use bombs and shells, prompting President Obama last week to warn Syria against using the banned munitions, according to Western and Middle Eastern officials.

Soldiers at one Syrian base were monitored mixing precursors for chemical weapons and taking other steps to ready the lethal munitions for battlefield use, the officials said. It was the first hard evidence that Syria was moving toward possible activation of its vast arsenal of chemical weapons, which includes nerve gas and other poisons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...532_story.html

[davidbfpo]

A week ago I posted:

when will we see Scud SSM being used?

Yesterday in my catching up on the news I noted a report that Scuds had been launched from Damascus to hit targets to the north (sorry lost link, probably FP).

Given local sensitivities around Scuds I wonder if Syria reassures Israel in particular that a launch will occur and indicate the target area?

[davidbfpo]

A dissenting article in The Independent by Patrick Cockburn, that set off a flurry of critical Tweets about his accusation that the media were giving a slanted view of what was happening. The bigger story was how a YouTube video was strengthening the Bashir regime; the video is not linked, no doubt due to being horrific.

Link:http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...r-8420309.html

[davidbfpo]

Russian military advisers are manning some of Syria's more sophisticated air defences – something that would complicate any future US-led intervention...The advisers have been deployed with new surface-to-air systems and upgrades of old systems, which Moscow has supplied to the Assad regime since the Syrian revolution broke out 21 months ago.

(Later) The upgrades were supplied by Moscow, which sees them as a bulwark against western-imposed regime change and protection of a longstanding investment in Syria. The country includes Russia's biggest electronic eavesdropping post outside its territory, in Latakia, and its toehold on the Mediterranean, a small naval base at Tartus.

Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...nce?CMP=twt_fd

Some interesting points, I'm puzzled that no mention IIRC has been made of the ELINT post before. Given the reported lack of regime manpower aqnd apparent desperation one wonders if the air defence network is fully manned.

[davidbfpo]

Possibly the first use of chemical weapons @ Homs, on Sunday; hat tip to Enduring America:http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/...on-sunday.html

A private, US analytical company concluded:

While by no means certain and harkening back to caveats mentioned earlier, information on hand suggests that the chemical agent used to kill 7 in Homs, Syria, was likely Chlorine Gas, Cyanogen Chloride (CK) or Phosgene Gas (CG). This is a preliminary estimate that will likely change as more evidence comes in.

Full report:http://www.osen-hunter.com/images/os...ember%2024.pdf

Given the reported use of unusual explosive devices, such as naval mines, which suggests a measure of desperation and the known, historical capability to manufacture chemical weapons - is this a test of an improvised chemical weapon?

[bourbon]

Given the reported use of unusual explosive devices, such as naval mines, which suggests a measure of desperation and the known, historical capability to manufacture chemical weapons - is this a test of an improvised chemical weapon?

I imagine they would test such an improvised weapon first on dogs, prisoners and/or livestock first.

However, why bother crossing the CW threshold only to use improvised weapons - when presumably you have a mature chemical weapons program? No sense escalating to the use of chemical weapons only to use something that might work.


I am skeptical of claims by rebel groups in general; and especially on alert over Syria/CW claims, there are forces at play that would like to drag the US into another Middle Eastern conflict.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Professor Paul Rogers for directing attention to this short, detailed assessment of the options on Syria's chemical weapons in mid-December 2012:http://www.natowatch.org/node/835 and the original WINEP paper from July 2012:http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/p...litary-options

Citing an ex-DoD intell analyst:

There are a whole bunch of really bad options here....Sitting back and pushing him not to use them, I think, is the best.

Paul Rogers column ends with:

...more likely that if any action were to be taken against Syrian chemical weapons, Israel would take the decisive action. The Israelis' concern to protect their security, including a determination to prevent radical Islamist groups acquiring weapons of mass destruction, make their position clearer than the US's..... Moreover, Israel's security commitment is so fundamental that it would almost certainly have a lower threshold of “collateral damage” for Syrian civilians than the US.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...ns-vs-politics

[davidbfpo]

A leaked US Embassy (Istanbul) report on the alleged use of a chemical weapon is on Twitter, but not in the UK media so far:http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po..._used_in_syria

Experts say the symptoms match the effects of Agent 15, known also by its NATO code BZ, which is a CX-level incapacitating agent that is controlled under schedule 2 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Syria is not a party.

One comment suggested BZ / CX was similar to Mace. CDC says:

BZ toxicity, which might occur by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption, is an anticholinergic syndrome consisting of a combination of signs and symptoms that might include hallucinations; agitation; mydriasis (dilated pupils); blurred vision; dry, flushed skin; urinary retention; ileus; tachycardia; hypertension; and elevated temperature (>101ºF).

Link:http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/bz/casedef.asp

[TheCurmudgeon]

I believe I mentioned this possibility some time back as one of two possible ways for the US to get sucked into this. Israel attacks Syria based on concerns over chemical weapons going to Jordan - Iran sides with Syria - Iran and Israel get involved directly or indirectly and the west gets dragged screaming and cheering into the fray.

President Assad said on Sunday that last Wednesday's raid "unmasked the true role Israel is playing, in collaboration with foreign enemy forces and their agents on Syrian soil, to destabilise and weaken Syria".

But he said, in a meeting with Saeed Jalili, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, that his country's military was able to confront "current threats... and aggression".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21311874

[davidbfpo]

The position of western countries vis--vis the Syrian events is a complex one. But the idea that the west will accept a protracted conflict in order to weaken Syria as a state, exhaust it as a society, and reduce its ability to play a role in the region, is now widespread among the opposition. It is another bleak signal in a conflict without end.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/vicken-...itics-of-anger

This is the conclusion of a bitter article citing Syrian exiles and a few left inside Syria. I am not saying it is wrong or right.

On SWC we have debated whether a Western intervention, even another option, yes the UN's "blue berets", could be justified and was practical. We have not IIRC considered the impact of not intervening, especially on the Jihadist legend of an uninterested West, with its human rights etc.

As one Syrian journalist says:

When the revolution started we filmed the violations and documented the repression. We believed that the work of citizen journalists will have an impact, and that the world will come to our aid.

Not that 'We told you and you stood watching' is not uncommon.

[J Wolfsberger]

Would it be cynical or nasty to point out to them that at least they don't have any Crusader armies on their sacred soil?

We half a$$ed it in Somalia.
Ignored Rwanda.
Toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Went into Iraq (which was only marginally worse than Syria) to howls of disapproval.
Ignored Darfur.
Ignored (and holding) the Great War of Central Africa.
Intervened in Libya, I suspect only because of a growing refugee problem in Southern Europe.
Were dragged kicking and screaming into Mali.

And now these guys are upset that we're not jumping in there to save them in Syria.

Once, burned, twice shy. And third, fourth, fifth and counting - a blithering idiot. It is a tragedy, but this is what the entire world, including a lot of the victims of the current "man caused disaster", wanted.

Color me underwhelmed.

[J Wolfsberger]

There's this: The Coming War in the Middle East

[TheCurmudgeon]

On SWC we have debated whether a Western intervention, even another option, yes the UN's "blue berets", could be justified and was practical. We have not IIRC considered the impact of not intervening, especially on the Jihadist legend of an uninterested West, with its human rights etc.

I am not in favor of intervening, at least not without a UN mandate that included the power to enforce it. The reason I am not in favor is because I don't know if anyone in the West understand the nature of the conflict, the participants, and their ultimate goals. We like to think of these things as democratic revolutions, and to a point, they are revolutions by the population against a particular autocratic leader. But that does not mean that the next leader will be any less autocratic, just supported by a larger portion of the society (ala Egypt). No matter who wins, someone is going to hate us for centuries to come.

So if there is a UN force, it needs to be an Arab or Muslim force. I am pretty certain that westerners do not have a corner on the humanitarian market. But again, there is the rub. Any such force is likely to be biased to one side or the other: to one tribe or sect. So again, I don't see an easy answer.

I would agree with some form of containment - but that does not seem to fit well with all the outsiders intents. Every outside party seems to have their own group they want to support. And again, it would have to be based on international consensus. Probably unlikely.

In the future the conflict may reach a point where it spills over and outsiders are dragged into it. My guess is it will look something like the beginning or WWI. If we are smart, we will see this coming and head it off. But there is a lot of pent-up hatred in that part of the world, as well as long memories. I am not optimistic.

[davidbfpo]

I fully agree parts of the world, not always Western, have 'stood watching' often for good reasons, including practicality. The episode I researched once was the UK decision not to coerce the white minority regime in Rhodesia, effectively leaving the black nationalists to use coercion to take power.

As long time readers will know I have an interest in how "kith & kin" effects national decision-making and to a far lesser extent coalition and international decisions. Returning to Rhodesia the white minority regime had links back to the UK mainly, only to a particular section of the political spectrum who could be nuisance to some UK governments.

Move forward from 1965-1980 to today. Modern media plus social media can put information, news and the visual image in our homes, mobile phones and computers if we watch the news. A few years ago, including the 'Arab Spring' social media became very fashionable as the 'new revolution'.

I am wondering aloud. What is a successful combination that will get external involvement right up to national government action?

Media access, an interested audience with a long standing "kith & kin" connection which may affect national decision making and a clear national interest worthy of resourcing.

Mali is a good, partial illustration. Some media, not much visual pre-French action; a small 6k presence of French nationals and a French policy of confronting AQ (in their African operational style). Another would be the US action over Grenada, a tiny speck in the Caribbean; little media, in the USA's "backyard", concerns over a "new Cuba" and an all-American (white) student medical school.

There is value in mapping the links and looking at the world or parts of the world that way.

Afghanistan after the Soviet exit aroused very few, not even its neighbours (except Pakistan eventually, creating the Taliban), almost no media (I do recall footage of Scuds being fired at Kabul); certainly no "kith & kin" with access to power - all change after 9/11.

Anyway t'is late and good night.

[jmm99]

We are now into the 23rd year of the New World Order, dating it from the January 29, 1991 State of the Union Address:

Halfway around the world, we are engaged in a great struggle in the skies and on the seas and sands. We know why we’re there. We are Americans - part of something larger than ourselves.

For two centuries we’ve done the hard work of freedom. And tonight we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity.

What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea — a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children’s future.

The community of nations has resolutely gathered to condemn and repel lawless aggression. Saddam Hussein’s unprovoked invasion - his ruthless, systematic rape of a peaceful neighbor - violated everything the community of nations holds dear. The world has said this aggression would not stand, and it will not stand.

Together, we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants. The world has answered Saddam’s invasion with 12 United Nations resolutions, starting with a demand for Iraq’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal, and backed up by forces from 28 countries of six continents. With few exceptions, the world now stands as one.

In Steve Metz's excellent case study, Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy (2008), he states that the post-Cold War strategy had shifted from prevention (containment) to promotion (p.8):

Now the idea was emerging that American power could be used to promote things, including U.S. influence and other values such as the promotion of human rights.

and further (p.31):

The National Security Strategy explicitly rejected the idea that the United States should be the "world's policeman", but advocated a leading role. It was to be semi-collective security, an orchestra with a single maestro.

Based on the eloquent summary of events by John :

We half a$$ed it in Somalia.
Ignored Rwanda.
Toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Went into Iraq (which was only marginally worse than Syria) to howls of disapproval.
Ignored Darfur.
Ignored (and holding) the Great War of Central Africa.
Intervened in Libya, I suspect only because of a growing refugee problem in Southern Europe.
Were dragged kicking and screaming into Mali.

it may be that the New World Order Era (for the US) is something of a dead man walking. My crystal ball is quite cracked and doesn't know whether it is so or not. If it is so, I will not eulogize or mourn the passing of the New World Order.

However, if that is so, our political elite owe it to their country and the World to say so. In short, let the orchestra know that the baton up for grabs.

Talking, without doing, does no one any good.

Regards

Mike

[wm]

I fully agree parts of the world, not always Western, have 'stood watching' often for good reasons, including practicality. The episode I researched once was the UK decision not to coerce the white minority regime in Rhodesia, effectively leaving the black nationalists to use coercion to take power.

As long time readers will know I have an interest in how "kith & kin" effects national decision-making and to a far lesser extent coalition and international decisions. Returning to Rhodesia the white minority regime had links back to the UK mainly, only to a particular section of the political spectrum who could be nuisance to some UK governments.

Move forward from 1965-1980 to today. Modern media plus social media can put information, news and the visual image in our homes, mobile phones and computers if we watch the news. A few years ago, including the 'Arab Spring' social media became very fashionable as the 'new revolution'.

I am wondering aloud. What is a successful combination that will get external involvement right up to national government action?

Media access, an interested audience with a long standing "kith & kin" connection which may affect national decision making and a clear national interest worthy of resourcing.

Mali is a good, partial illustration. Some media, not much visual pre-French action; a small 6k presence of French nationals and a French policy of confronting AQ (in their African operational style). Another would be the US action over Grenada, a tiny speck in the Caribbean; little media, in the USA's "backyard", concerns over a "new Cuba" and an all-American (white) student medical school.

There is value in mapping the links and looking at the world or parts of the world that way.

Afghanistan after the Soviet exit aroused very few, not even its neighbours (except Pakistan eventually, creating the Taliban), almost no media (I do recall footage of Scuds being fired at Kabul); certainly no "kith & kin" with access to power - all change after 9/11.

Anyway t'is late and good night.

David,

I think a significant difference exists in the alignment of kith and kin in the today's world as compared to the world of 1965-1980 that you mentioned. The 20th centurty kith and kin were expatriates from the former colonial power. That is the folks who were subject to danger were related to long term citizens of the contries that might intervene, having come from those countries as part of the colonization process (White Rhodesians, Pied Noir in Algeria, etc). In the 21st century, I think that the position is reversed. Those who tend to ask for help are relatively newly-arrived immigrants from the countries where oppression is occurring. As a result, they tend to have a much less well-entrenched power base to sway political opinion in the governments of the countries that might intervene. Mali looks more like the 20th Century model, in that the 6000 French citizens in Mali reflect something like the old Pied Noir presence. Iraqissomewhat more like the 20th Century model as well: it had rather long standing immigrant/ex-pat communities in the various western nations who have managed to become part of their adopted countries' power bases. Syria is similar, but much less so than Iraq partly, I believe, because Syria was a French protectorate (not a colony) post WWI. Consider the other entities from John W's list where intervention did not occur: Darfur, Rwanda, CAR. How many Westerners with extensive/powerful kith and kin back home have chosen to live/stay there over the last century? And how powerful have those who have emigrated from those countries become, wherever they may now live?

[TheCurmudgeon]

I fully agree parts of the world, not always Western, have 'stood watching' often for good reasons, including practicality. The episode I researched once was the UK decision not to coerce the white minority regime in Rhodesia, effectively leaving the black nationalists to use coercion to take power.

As long time readers will know I have an interest in how "kith & kin" effects national decision-making and to a far lesser extent coalition and international decisions. Returning to Rhodesia the white minority regime had links back to the UK mainly, only to a particular section of the political spectrum who could be nuisance to some UK governments.

Interesting. I have been doing some research for a paper I want to writing on when we (Western nations in general and the U.S. in particular) choose to go to war. A component of the Liberal Peace Theory (different from the Democratic Peace Theory) is interdependence. The more ties there are between countries the less likely they are to go to war with each other. An unstated corollary is that the more ties you have between countries the more likely one country is to "aid" another country. If there is just enough affinity to the country and there is enough media attention (what used to be called yellow journalism) you can stir up enough interest to get the military involved. If there are no ties (Darfur?) there is not enough interest.

We have an ever expanding list of the reasons to get involved.

The concept of people deserving protection evolved: from the confessional co-religionist, to all fellow Christians, to all human beings. The concept of what was illegitimate evolved: starting with ‘tyranny’ and religious persecution, it then encompassed slavery (which had been a staple of civilized commerce) and ‘uncivilized’ governance; then focused on war crimes, before expanding to crimes ‘against humanity’. The concept of what international society ought to support and maintain evolved, too: from Christendom, to liberty, liberalism, and civilization, then ultimately to universal human rights.

Trim, D. B. J. “Humanitarian Interventions”, in “The Changing Character of War” Ed. Strachan, Hew, and Scheipers, Sibylle. 2011. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. pps 157-8.

But we still need a connection to make the suffering real.

It also helps if the people with the connection to the country have connections of their own to the media or the politicians. Then you can create interest.

[davidbfpo]

From JMM's post in part:

Consider the other entities from John W's list where intervention did not occur: Darfur, Rwanda, CAR. How many Westerners with extensive/powerful kith and kin back home have chosen to live/stay there over the last century? And how powerful have those who have emigrated from those countries become, wherever they may now live?

Darfur before the internal conflict began, amongst 100% Muslim population, had very few Westerners visiting, let alone resident; nor was there a Darfur diaspora, unlike other parts of the Sudan. (I may get some insight from someone who was there before the conflict began).

Rwanda had a very small Western presence, before the conflict began; a mix of French nationals, maybe a few UN types and a scattering of mainly European missionaries (some from Italy & Spain, each sent SOF teams to ask them to get out). There was a diaspora, nearly all in Belgium - which IIRC was a factor in the Belgian military contribution to the UN contingent (which was withdrawn before the genocide began).

CAR (Central African Republic) I know little about. Wiki has two rather general comments:

The Central African Republic is heavily dependent upon multilateral foreign aid and the presence of numerous NGOs which provide services which the government fails to provide....The very presence of numerous foreign personnel and organizations in the country, including peacekeepers and even refugee camps, provides an important source of revenue for many Central Africans.

(Other ethnic groups)...4%, including Europeans of mostly French descent....There are many missionary groups operating in the country, including Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics, Grace Brethren, and Jehovah's Witnesses. While these missionaries are predominantly from the United States, France, Italy, and Spain, many are also from Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and other African countries. Many missionaries left the country due to fighting between rebel and government forces in 2002 and 2003. Many have now returned to the country.

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic

My question to American members is whether the policies of the USA, are affected by its changing population mix: more Asiatics (Korea & Phillipines come to mind), the large Hispanic minority; can we leave alone the Jewish community.

[TheCurmudgeon]

My question to American members is whether the policies of the USA, are affected by its changing population mix: more Asiatics (Korea & Phillipines come to mind), the large Hispanic minority; can we leave alone the Jewish community.

Sadly, I would say no, or at least not in the way one might think. American's don't really think about others unless it somehow ingratiates us. We have our private international relations which seem to be largely economically driven. Since the end of the Cold War we don't care unless there is a business interest. Then we have our public international humanitarian concerns which can be interest group based, but for the life of me I can't think of one national ethnic/diaspora based group (except for the pro-Israeli lobby).

Our humanitarian foreign policy concerns are all celebrity driven. I don't think many American's would know where Darfur was if it were not for George Clooney and Angelina Jolie.

There may have been a greater interest in Nicaragua and Honduras because of the refugees that came here during the war, and I think at least some of our concern for Haiti is based on the number of diaspora here (or because when things get bad there they try to float over here), but I have not noticed a large shift that can be clearly associated with the population change. Hispanics are probably the largest single group that have gained ground both in share of population and in political impact, but I have not noticed an increased interest in foreign policy south of our border. The people who come here are trying to escape whatever they were leaving. This is the home of the self-absorbed. We like those who want to be like us - who want to stay here (hence, an interest in immigration policy). When people do come here to better themselves and then go back to where they came we don't like them and so they don't garner much interest or support. We can't understand why anyone would wan to leave.

I am sure others will have a different take, but sadly that is the way I see it.

The only place I can think of where the diaspora population still influences foreign policy is Cuba. But I am not sure how much of that is the expats and how much is the fact that everyone associates Cuba with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Once more people think of Cuba in terms of cigars then do in terms of the Cold War, I am sure our position will soften.

[davidbfpo]

An interesting Australian comment by the Lowy Institute:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...-(part-2).aspx

The Syrian Army's performance also shows the folly of structuring for the war you think you're going to fight. The Syrian military saw itself fighting a land battle a la Golan Heights 1967, and spent decades lolling around in Lebanon while its senior officers enjoyed the financial benefits of such duties.

Sedentary occupation duties do little for initiative, while a heavy reliance on mechanised forces with an equally heavy reliance on firepower to neutralise concentrations of enemy forces leads one to lean towards using a hammer to swat a fly.

I would differ from this. The Syrian Army in Lebanon (1976-2005) was not entirely on 'sedentary occupation duties', fighting a number of factions and I can recall some comments on how they adapted to street / urban fighting - with snipers, the use of artillery and 'political agents' aka intelligence officers talking to everyone. Some information is on:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_...ion_of_Lebanon

Quite plausible is that the Syrian Army has forgotten this, a not un-common phenomena in all armies. We also know that prior to the First Chechen War ( December 1994 to August 1996) the Russian Army had largely forgotten how to conduct urban operations and would have been an unlikely source of advice then. Having spoken recently to a SME on Chechnya the Russians have been harshly suppressing the insurgency for a long time - so the Syrians clearly may have absorbed the lessons learnt.

The rebels appear to have achieved some degree of coordination, as demonstrated by their focus on attacking Syrian air bases (in recognition of the threat these bases pose).