Syria: a civil war (closed)

[JMA]

China may not give a rat's ass about Assad, but they are interested in Syrian oil.


Iran Aids Syrian Oil Exports to China, Report Says

That's nice of the Chinese.

There the US/EU were thinking that sanctions were hurting the Assad regime... then along comes dear old uncle Hong and helps them out.

Well perhaps like Russia the penny will start to drop that there may well be penalties in the future for their relationship with Assad. So without Assad the Sino-Syrian relationship may be radically changed. So does anyone really buy the opinion that "the Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria"?

Oh yes and the other smart guy said:

It's far from certain that even a worst case scenario in Syria would have a major adverse effect on US interests in the region.

So we can all sleep well!

[JMA]

Has anyone here suggested that "they alone know what is in the best interests of the USA"? Since when has the observation that nobody has presented a compelling case for an interest in Syria sufficient to justify intervention and no significant political faction supports such intervention equated to an attempt to define what is in the national interest?

From the nature in which certain individuals repeatedly claim what is and what is not "in the best interests of the US" but not adding IMHO or "as I see it" or "as I read public opinion" it is clear that they believe they know and can speak on behalf of the US people (or to attempt to use it to weight their argument especially when being an American in a foreign country and impress the locals).

And this case needs to be presented to you? Who exactly are you to make such demands on anyone... especially when you are so economic with taking any quotable position yourself?

[JMA]

Personally, I've taken two positions here.

Regarding intervention in general, I've stated the opinion that non-intervention should be the default choice. To override that default two things have to be in place:

1. A compelling national interest
2. A concrete, practical, limited and viable plan for intervention

Regarding US intervention is Syria specifically, I've stated that public support for intervention is low (understatement), and that no significant political faction has supported intervention or presented a convincing case for a US interest that is sufficiently compelling to even begin to make a case for intervention. Those opinions are based on observation.

Merely two personal opinions... to which you are entitled.

No I don't wish to comment on your opinions but would note that you appear to have no stated interest in the outcome for Syria or the region or the ME. One could probably read something into that.

[Entropy]

Maybe should consider introducing an age restriction around here?

I guess you're not a Star Wars fan? If you're not, you probably don't get that the picture is a joke about the movie. "It's a trap" is a bit of a cultural meme to some "USians." Ironically, "USasians" is a term which, ironically, is a meme in other circles....

[Dayuhan]

That's nice of the Chinese.

There the US/EU were thinking that sanctions were hurting the Assad regime... then along comes dear old uncle Hong and helps them out.

Of course they'll help anyone who's an irritant to us. We'd do the same in the other direction. The Chinese don't approve of sanctions in general and will try to undercut them wherever they are applied, as long as there's no risk to them.

Well perhaps like Russia the penny will start to drop that there may well be penalties in the future for their relationship with Assad. So without Assad the Sino-Syrian relationship may be radically changed. So does anyone really buy the opinion that "the Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria"?

Don't bet on there being any penalty. The Chinese did plenty of business with Saddam, with or without sanctions, and they are major players in the post-Saddam Iraqi oil industry. When money talks, memory fades. If Assad falls the Chinese will do business with whoever gets in. Of course Syria's oil exports are insignificant and the Chinese have no major vested interests in Syria, so no, the Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Assad. They'll prop him up as long as he irritates the US, when his utility is used up they'll drop him and deal with whoever gets in.

Of course that whole conversation started with the quite bizarre notion that fear of notably unspecified repercussions from China or Russia dissuaded the US from an intervention that the US never had any interest in undertaking in the first place.

[Dayuhan]

you appear to have no stated interest in the outcome for Syria or the region or the ME. One could probably read something into that.

Are you discussing my personal interest or my perception of US interests? Two different things.

Obviously this is all very messy for Syria, but that doesn't mean the US should do something about it, or ever had an opportunity to do something about it. There are of course regional security risks, but much of the discussion of those risks seems remarkably unspecific. Again, the US never had a meaningful opportunity to avert those risks, and US intervention is as likely to exacerbate those risks as to avert them, IMO of course.

My belief that the US should not intervene in Syria is not based on absence of interest, it's based on a belief that there is no compelling US interest in intervention, no popular support for intervention, no viable opportunity for intervention, and thus no good argument supporting intervention.

Stating that the US can't solve a problem and shouldn't try does not suggest that the person making the statement believes that there is no problem. Not every problem is amenable to solution by US intervention.

From the nature in which certain individuals repeatedly claim what is and what is not "in the best interests of the US" but not adding IMHO or "as I see it" or "as I read public opinion" it is clear that they believe they know and can speak on behalf of the US people (or to attempt to use it to weight their argument especially when being an American in a foreign country and impress the locals).

Seems to me that "IMO" should be implicit in anything written here, unless stated otherwise and appropriately referenced. Otherwise it would be in every sentence, and that would be cumbersome. When you accuse others of incompetence we assume that to be your opinion, though you generally do not state it to be so. We also dismiss the opinion, as you generally decline to mention what you think a competent alternative policy would have been.

And this case needs to be presented to you?

Any case for intervention by the US needs to be presented to the American people... democracy and all that, remember? Ideally it would also be effectively presented to the populace of the nation where intervention is proposed, and to the neighbors, who can make intervention more difficult.

If no case is presented, it's reasonably safe to assume that none exists. If a case is presented, that assessment would have to be reconsidered.

especially when you are so economic with taking any quotable position yourself?

I' think I've made my position quite clear. Do I need to repeat yet again? Seems awfully repetitive, especially when addressing someone who repeatedly implies that something could have been done but can't or won't say what.

[JMA]

... Syria, so no, the Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Assad.

No you said:

The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria.

Big difference.

[JMA]

Are you discussing my personal interest or my perception of US interests? Two different things.

Well I'm absolutely not interested in your "perception of US interests". That I can get looking through the news.

Obviously this is all very messy for Syria, but that doesn't mean the US should do something about it, or ever had an opportunity to do something about it.

What? Are you trying to say that the US has not been meddling in Syrian affairs for the last 16 months (or so)? Yes, the opportunities were indeed limited due to the involvement of Russia and China in the matter at various levels.

My belief that the US should not intervene in Syria is not based on absence of interest, it's based on a belief that there is no compelling US interest in intervention, no popular support for intervention, no viable opportunity for intervention, and thus no good argument supporting intervention.

That is merely your opinion... to which you are entitled.

Seems to me that "IMO" should be implicit in anything written here, unless stated otherwise and appropriately referenced. Otherwise it would be in every sentence, and that would be cumbersome. When you accuse others of incompetence we assume that to be your opinion, though you generally do not state it to be so. We also dismiss the opinion, as you generally decline to mention what you think a competent alternative policy would have been.

As it is obvious that a slide into civil war was not in the interests of any of the involved nations that it has is a sure indicator of failure.

As I stated with Libya arming the opposition and then stating a desire for a peaceful transition is quite ridiculous.

Then once the civl war threatens to suck in neighbouring or regional countries to maintain the pretense that this could not be foreseen is simply a demonstration of incompetence.

To watch and comment on the implosion of Syria is a simple observation and there is no onus on the observer to offer an alternative solution.

[Dayuhan]

Big difference.

Not that big. Either way it's not a major issue for them. The oil involved is insignificant and neither Assad nor Syria are in any way key interests for the Chinese. Of course they'll ignore sanctions and vote against intervention at the UN as a matter of general policy rather than from any specific policy regarding Syria, but I see no reason to think they have the desire or the means to get seriously involved, and the idea that fear of (again, unspecified) repercussions from China prevented the US from undertaking an intervention that virtually nobody in the US wanted in the first place is... far-fetched, to put it politely.

[Wyatt]

I found this article pretty interesting and had not seen it posted yet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...s-battle-syria

Almost every rebel brigade has adopted a Sunni religious name with rhetoric exalting jihad and martyrdom, even when the brigades are run by secular commanders and manned by fighters who barely pray.

"Religion is a major rallying force in this revolution – look at Ara'our [a rabid sectarian preacher], he is hysterical and we don't like him but he offers unquestionable support to the fighters and they need it," the activist said later.

Another FSA commander in Deir el-Zour city explained the role of religion in the uprising: "Religion is the best way to impose discipline. Even if the fighter is not religious he can't disobey a religious order in battle."

Seeing as how they are keen to make new bedfellows, I am curious to know what if any precautions the Saudis and Qataris are taking to monitor the support they are providing. I doubt the Saudis have forgotten that they were considered apostate regimes by AQ not to long ago.

from a physician in the article

"They are stealing the revolution from us and they are working for the day that comes after."

Glad he can see it as well. How do you prevent this? Being more brutal than AQ affiliated groups seems like a tough line to walk if your trying to have freedom/democracy of any sort...

[ganulv]

How do you prevent this? Being more brutal than AQ affiliated groups seems like a tough line to walk if your trying to have freedom/democracy of any sort...

It seems facile to me to portray the relationship as parasitic rather than symbiotic. In the words of Chris Hedges:

There are times when the only choice left is to pick up a weapon to defend your family, neighborhood and city. But those who proved most adept at defending Sarajevo invariably came from the criminal class. When they were not shooting at Serbian soldiers they were looting the apartments of ethnic Serbs in Sarajevo and often executing them, as well as terrorizing their fellow Muslims.

ETA: I’m not trying to say this is a Muslim thing. Or even a religious thing, though it often enough throughout human history has manifested itself through that medium.

[TheCurmudgeon]

WASHINGTON—The U.S. has given a Washington-based group clearance to provide direct financial assistance to the Free Syrian Army, a new bid by the Obama administration to support Syria's opposition.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...242140956.html

[Surferbeetle]

Glad he can see it as well. How do you prevent this? Being more brutal than AQ affiliated groups seems like a tough line to walk if your trying to have freedom/democracy of any sort...

In Iraq many of the educated, the middle class, and the rich left for safer climes while the poor often sheltered in place as best they could.

Observed that migration pattern while working the ca side of things (mainly reconstruction, but some humanitarian as well) in some of the larger cities and around the edges of Kurdistan during OIF1 & OND.

It would be interesting to see a flash demographic study of Syrian IDP's and Refugees.

Syrian Refugees Are Stung by a Hostile Reception in Iraq, By DURAID ADNAN and ROD NORDLAND, Published: July 29, 2012, NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/wo...pagewanted=all

He expected a warm welcome. After all, his country had taken in 1.2 million Iraqis during their recent war, far more than any of Iraq’s other neighbors, and had allowed them to work, send their children to public schools and receive state medical care.

Instead, Mr. Muafak found himself and his family locked up in a school under guard with several hundred other Syrians, forbidden to leave to visit relatives in Iraq or to do anything else.

vs.

No Place Like Home: Iraq’s Refugee Crisis Threatens the Future of Iraq, Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 8February 26, 2010 12:25 PM, By: Rachel Schneller at Jamestown Foundation, http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_..._news%5D=36089

The massive upheaval of Iraq’s population that has occurred since 2006 threatens the long-term stability of the country, regardless of short-term gains achieved through the political process or military surges. Symptomatic of a destabilized Iraq, displaced populations are themselves a source of future destabilization. Many Middle Eastern countries experienced instability resulting from Palestinians displaced after the establishment of Israel in 1948, the last refugee crisis of comparable proportions in the region. Problems originating from the Palestinian refugee crisis continue today, and the wheels of a new refugee crisis have been set in motion with over four million of Iraq’s original 26 million inhabitants displaced since 2003, representing about 20 percent of its pre-war population. [1] An estimated two million Iraqi refugees now reside predominantly in Syria and Jordan, and an additional estimated 1.6 million are internally displaced persons (IDPs). [2]

Iraq has a long history of migration both inside and outside of the country. Under Saddam, Shi’a Arabs and Kurds fled to Iran to escape oppression. The Ba’athist regime actively attempted to alter the demographics of the predominantly Kurdish north and the Shi’a south. In 2003, Iraqis of all ethnicities and religions temporarily fled the general violence of the U.S.-led military intervention. But the displacement that has occurred since the February 2006 bombing of the Samarra mosque affected all of Iraq’s different groups in unprecedented proportions, altering the demographic fabric of the nation for the foreseeable future. [3] Sunnis fled Shi’a-dominated areas for predominantly Sunni provinces or went abroad; Shi’a fled Sunni provinces for predominantly Shi’a provinces or abroad; Arabs evacuated Kurdish areas of Iraq and Christians have largely left the country altogether (Al-Sabah, January 16). [4] As an unintended consequence of the U.S. invasion, Iraqis of all ethnic and religious backgrounds who have worked for Coalition forces have been targeted for assassination.

[Dayuhan]

What? Are you trying to say that the US has not been meddling in Syrian affairs for the last 16 months (or so)?

Meddling perhaps, though to a minimal and generally ineffectual extent. That doesn't mean the US ever made a serious effort to alter conditions in Syria or ever had the opportunity to do so. Looks to me mostly like show.

Yes, the opportunities were indeed limited due to the involvement of Russia and China in the matter at various levels.

Are you going to specify what Russian and Chinese involvement you're talking about and how it supposedly restrained the US, or do you expect us to take that opinion as revealed truth, without any supporting evidence?

That is merely your opinion... to which you are entitled.

Since you can neither provide nor cite any argument suggesting a compelling US interest in intervention, popular support for intervention, and/or viable opportunity for intervention, may I take it that you agree with that opinion, or at least that if you disagree, you do so without substantial cause?

As it is obvious that a slide into civil war was not in the interests of any of the involved nations that it has is a sure indicator of failure.

Things happen that are not in the interests of the US, or any other nation. That's not necessarily an indication of "failure". It can be an indication that the nation or nations in question concluded that the risks and costs of trying to alter or prevent those events exceeded the risks and costs of simply dealing with the events as they emerge.

As I stated with Libya arming the opposition and then stating a desire for a peaceful transition is quite ridiculous.

Is the US arming the opposition? Not that I've heard. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, yes, possibly others, but they do so on their own accord, in pursuit of their own interests.

The inevitable statement of a desire for peaceful transition seems to me more of an obligatory mantra than a realistic plan. I think everybody knew from the start that this wasn't going to be peaceful. There are things diplomats are expected to say.

Then once the civl war threatens to suck in neighbouring or regional countries to maintain the pretense that this could not be foreseen is simply a demonstration of incompetence.

That "threat" remains unspecified and largely hypothetical. Of course the potential for regional impacts was foreseen. Trying to manage and contain a foreseen risk rather than trying to prevent the risk from emerging would only be incompetent if there was a viable means to prevent it. If an attempt to avert the risk was judged to have greater risks and costs than managing and containing the hypothetical threats as they emerge, I can't see any incompetence in the picture.

I do not see how a Syrian civil war with the US in the middle of it would be less a threat to regional security that a Syrian civil war without the US in the middle of it. Since nobody has suggested any means by which the US could have prevented a civil war, what other alternative was there?

To watch and comment on the implosion of Syria is a simple observation and there is no onus on the observer to offer an alternative solution.

If a comment claims that any player in the picture was "incompetent" without any suggestion of what could or should have been done better or differently, the comment in question has little if any meaning or value.

Anyone can criticize and blame: that's easy, especially from a distance. Criticism and blame without substance, support, or any suggestion of what the critic would rather have seen done will generally be ignored, for good reason.

[Entropy]

As it is obvious that a slide into civil war was not in the interests of any of the involved nations that it has is a sure indicator of failure.

If an "involved" state, such as Saudi Arabia, thought a civil war was a necessary step to achieve the goal of an allied, Sunni-dominated Syria, then civil was , and is, in the interest of Saudi Arabia and like-minded states.

Civil war is not in the interest of other nations (see, especially, Iran) but I'm not so certain that is a "sure indicator of failure" for those countries. After all, nations have interests but that doesn't automatically mean they have the capability to bring those interests into being.

[Ken White]

Perhaps I should explain more clearly that if anyone determines what is in the "best interests of the US" it is the President and not any number of random USians in discussion groups such as this who often believe they are so anointed to make such a statement.

You need to re-read the Friedman article. Those random Americans are drivers of many things...

So out here in the colonies one would pay more attention to what comes out of the Whitehouse in this regard than from the claims of any individual.

That would seem to be a norm. You 'out there' are of course aware that what comes out of the White House often bears absolutely no relationship to reality and you might be well advised to pay a bit more attention to random Americans...

And again, re-read the article. As you have finally realized, US foreign policy is driven by domestic politics, stuff that comes out of the WH is addressed almost always to a domestic audience and may be the very opposite of what's actually being done internationally.

Seems to be a cultural thing with USians that they all believe that they and they alone know what is in the "best interests of the US".

I would not presume to tell you what is in the best interests of South Africa yet you often presume to tell us what is in the best interest of the US...

You get that wrong about as often as does the White House...

[slapout9]

Link to NBC report that Syrian rebels will be supplied with Man Launched Ant-Aircraft Missiles, supposed supplied by Turkey. You will have to watch a 30 second commercial before the report.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=48429494?

[Dayuhan]

Print version of the above, for those who, like me, don't like getting news from video...

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...87001O20120801

Syrian rebels acquire surface-to-air missiles - report

Rebels fighting to depose Syrian president Bashar al Assad have for the first time acquired a small supply of surface-to-air missiles, according to a news report that a Western official did not dispute.

NBC News reported Tuesday night that the rebel Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen of the weapons, which were delivered to them via neighboring Turkey, whose moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad's departure with increasing vehemence.

Indications are that the U.S. government, which has said it opposes arming the rebels, is not responsible for the delivery of the missiles...

What they actually got, and whether they received the training required to use what they got effectively, remains unknown. We shall see.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Much of what I have added in the last few days was to raise awareness that Syria is no Tunisia, or Libya, or Egypt, or even Yemen or Iran. There are two reasons for the distinctions.

First, the length of time this has gone on. It has been almost a year-and-a-half since this all began. Plenty of time for it to morph into something other than what the malcontents in Syria originally intended. The transition should have been expected. It is hard to tell yet what will happen in Tunisia and Libya but Egypt is clearly leaning towards an Islamic state. I would suspect that the others will follow (or maybe they are leading, just can't tell). In any case, those on the battlefield are changing the character of the fight. It is very possible that some of the brigades will be directly controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda (yeah, the last one is a stretch, but who can tell for sure). In any case, the war it is a changin.

Second, the number of players who have a real stake in the outcome, either in Syria or in the UN, would appear to outnumber those in the previous revolutions. Russia has a military instillation in Syria that is part of their long term military strategy to keep access to the Mediterranean. Turkey is supplying arms to the rebels and wants to limit Kurdish influence in the final state. Iran fears losing an alley in the fight against the Zionists. Israel fears another fundamentalist Islamic state on its borders. Everyone is interested in what will happen to the alleged WMDs. So again, the risk here is not so much that there will be a civil war with the associated humanitarian ramifications, human rights violations, and war crimes. I am a cynic. What happens in Syria stays in Syria (at least until after the war is over). The risk is that what happens if Syria triggers events beyond its borders.

How so? What specific scenarios do we fear? Is intervention likely to reduce or exacerbate that potential?

So, to answer this question I offer two senarios:

The Turkish Escalation. In this case events on the Turkish border trigger a larger conflict. Two possible events come to mind. First, there could be another shoot-down of a Turkish aircraft. This could cause the Turks to retaliate by taking out an ADA site. Assad seizes on the opportunity to call in help from the Iranians who oblige

Reports claim that a message sent to Ankara by Iran warned that “any attack on Syrian territory will be met with a harsh response and the Iranian-Syrian mutual defense agreement will be activated.”

Iran warns Turkey of harsh response

The other possibility is that Assad, knowing full well that Turkey is arming the rebels from a town just inside the border. Using a similar justification that Turkey used to go after PKK fighters in Iraq, Syrian forces attack and destroy arms intended for Syria while they are still in Turkey.Turkish commandos enter Iraq

In any case the result is the same. In the end Turkey, citing mutual defense, drags the US into it. The Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz, and the fun begins.

The Israeli Gambit. In this scenario members of Islamic leaning rebel forces threaten to take over an installation where WMDs could be stored. Israel, acting independently and citing its own survival as justification, send troops into Syria to secure the weapons. Things don't go as well as planned and either the troops get bogged down or the Syrians actually make good on their threat to us chemical weapons should foreigners enter the fray. Syria claims this is an attack on them by Israel and calls in Iran, who obliges with retaliatory missile strikes on Israeli military installations.

These are just two possibilities. I am sure others could be thought up. I am sure some will say they are ridiculous but I think it was just as ridiculous to think that an assassination of an Austrian Archduke by a member of the Black Hand would lead to deaths of over two million French and British Soldiers. The conditions external to the country already exist along with the associated fears by the parties who have a hand in this matter. The potential exists in the tensions that have been building up in the region for years, particularly the rediscovery of a common Islamic heritage and identity. The only question is whether there will be a spark significant enough to set of a chain of events that take things beyond the Syrian boarders.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about nation-building. I am talking about what, if any, actions could be taken to enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution rather than let things simmer until they spin out of control. My concern is not modernization or expanding democracy but in keeping a lid on the powder keg. Yes, I am being a little dramatic, but that seems to be the best way for me to get my point across.

At this point I see no legal justification to act. Future events may provide one. I don't like the option of American military intervention. I actually DO prefer the Chinese as they provide the least tainted option. The Russians are my second favorite since they already have a base of operations.

[JMA]

You need to re-read the Friedman article. Those random Americans are drivers of many things...That would seem to be a norm. You 'out there' are of course aware that what comes out of the White House often bears absolutely no relationship to reality and you might be well advised to pay a bit more attention to random Americans...

Thats a waste of time as their is no US consensus. But then again I suspect that with a foreign policy record like the US it is understandable that nobody wants to take responsibility for what has happened in the past or even yesterday. I am beginning to see it as a cultural phenomenon. Pretty sad really.

And again, re-read the article. As you have finally realized, US foreign policy is driven by domestic politics, stuff that comes out of the WH is addressed almost always to a domestic audience and may be the very opposite of what's actually being done internationally.

This brings us right back to the start of all this. This is why the US foreign policy is seen as bipolar and so often jaw-droppingly incompetent. I understand you when you say that's how the US is - and its not going to change - and I repeat to you that because of this the outside world -increasingly - is losing both respect and fear for the US. I would go further and suggest the relationships between the US and Third World countries is more like that of a John and a prostitute - in that as long as the US keeps throwing cash around they will get the attention. Of course when the cash gets tight their calls might not get returned.

I would not presume to tell you what is in the best interests of South Africa yet you often presume to tell us what is in the best interest of the US...

You can say what you like about South Africa - I don't have an immature sensitivity over criticism of that nature which would lead to a knee jerk reaction.

You get that wrong about as often as does the White House...

And you get it right all the time?