Syria: a civil war (closed)

[JMA]

I confess to not having read all of the posts on this thread. But to be clear, JMA you support an intervention just not by the USA?

Since you ask so nicely...

=====================


Opinion: The killings of opposition groups – men, women and children – by the minority Syrian regime must stop.

Opinion: I realise that Syria is a complex and unique problem.

Fact: The old Middle East Sunni/Shia is one major issue then there is that of Russia having Mediterranean ‘warm water’ port facilities there.

Fact: Then we have Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who stand to get scolded if Syria burns.

Fact: I accept that any talk of military intervention by the US and maybe the EU will be interpreted by Russia and others as a pretext for regime change.

Fact: Regime change in Syria will most likely mean the end of access to Syrian port facilities for the Russians.

Fact: A new Sunni Arab government in Syria will change the balance in the Middle East significantly.

Fact: There are many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in Syria.

Fact: The insurrection in Syria has been bubbling for more than a year with increased intensity over the recent months.

Opinion: The longer the insurrection lasts and the more violent it becomes the more difficult it will be to impose a peaceful settlement in Syria.

Fact: When challenged with an insurrection has one of two choices – act or abdicate.

(Negotiation is the soft route to abdication but few regimes willingly relinquish power and tend to try to hold on too long until overthrown or forced to surrender.)

Opinion: The Alawite minority will try to cling to power until a negotiated settlement is no longer possible.

Opinion: I am told that there is a saying among the (15% minority) Alawites and that is, “we either hand individually or we hang together”. I believe they have chosen the latter.

Opinion: If the Alawites lose power they will become a persecuted minority (and also on the receiving end of some serious payback). Will they submit to democratic elections willingly? No.

Opinion: The Alawites should therefore be removed from power by the quickest means as this will end the current killing and also reduce future payback effected on the Alawites.

Fact: There are clearly efforts being made to bring economic (sanctions) and diplomatic pressure to bear on the Syrian regime to end the carnage. Safe in the arms of Mother Russia the Syrian regime is unmoved.

Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

What are the possibilities that Russia will change its position?

Opinion: Not much… until the writing is on the wall for the Assad regime and then some.

So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

Who should do this?

Opinion: Anyone other than the US … or US assets placed under direct French or Brit military command.

Anyone other than the US able to do this?

Opinion: No. Military intervention is therefore unlikely as the Germans and the Dutch have already surrendered (no doubt with more to follow).

Why should the US not lead the intervention?

Opinion: Because (based on their track record) they will cock it up.

Where to from here?

Opinion: wait and see.

[J Wolfsberger]

From Space War: Commentary: Is Syria 2011 Spain 1936?
by Arnaud De Borchgrave

I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it does a good job of placing the Syrian uprising in the broader context. In particular, it brought to mind the political science definition of prestige: a state's reputation for being able to assert its will. With that in mind, De Borchgrave makes the point that, in the Middle East and especially around the Arab Gulf, U.S. is low. Whether that is an argument for or against intervention, he does point out the risky consequences of intervention.

He does make the interesting assertion that:

Saudi Arabia is helping arm Syrian rebels who now call themselves revolutionaries

[JMA]

From Space War: Commentary: Is Syria 2011 Spain 1936?
by Arnaud De Borchgrave

I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it does a good job of placing the Syrian uprising in the broader context. In particular, it brought to mind the political science definition of prestige: a state's reputation for being able to assert its will. With that in mind, De Borchgrave makes the point that, in the Middle East and especially around the Arab Gulf, U.S. is low. Whether that is an argument for or against intervention, he does point out the risky consequences of intervention.

He does make the interesting assertion that "Saudi Arabia is helping arm Syrian rebels who now call themselves revolutionaries."

He also notes:

Privately, Persian Gulf leaders say Iran has concluded the United States' days as a superpower are numbered. Iran's aging theocrats tell their visiting gulf interlocutors that America has lost two wars in 10 years -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and is pulling out of Europe and "pivoting" to Asia where China is already dominant.

and...

Unless Iran's current view of a rapidly declining U.S. superpower can be reversed, a number of Arab Gulf rulers will be tempted into longer lasting accommodation with Tehran.

[Ray]

I wonder how far is it doing good in so far as western interests are concerned.

Libya has been liberated. Egypt has been liberated.

The radicals seem to have taken over!

They are still in a flux to make a solid 'impression'.

But given the way things are in the Islamic world, Islam is über alles!

And Saudi money flowing all over the world is no help!

[jmm99]

Welcome to the interesting situation in Southwest Asia.

I agree that the "Arab Spring" could go off in an extremist (Islamist) direction. Moreover, the best result that could be expected in any country is the present state of Turkey (as I'd likely view the results from where I sit). As things stand in Southwest Asia and North Africa, Turkey is a moderating force.

The AKP - Justice and Development Party (Turkey) and its "paper of record", the Turkish daily Zaman ("era in time"; as in "our times" or the "Times") [TZ - Today's Zaman, the English-language edition], as moderate Islamics (not Islamists), portray themselves as favorable to both the Western world and to the Arab world. In the Turkish political spectrum, AKP advocates a conservative social agenda and a liberal market economy that includes Turkish membership in the European Union; but has pursued an aggressive "good guy" image to the Arab world since 2005.

While Turkey has not always been an admirable society, its core component (its ordinary people, solidly Islamic) have qualities that I find admirable. E.g., during the Korean War, Turkish POWs died not from starvation (they ate weeds), but from wounds inflicted by their captors. When the senior Turk was removed, the next senior took his place. The Turks never broke. The net result is that I follow TZ whenever something comes up in the Turkish sphere.

That being said, my news item is not from TZ, but from the Washington Post.

Syria’s Bashar al-Assad firmly in control, U.S. intelligence officials say (by Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung, Published: March 9; Updated: Saturday, March 10) (emphasis added):

A year into the uprising in Syria, senior U.S. intelligence officials described the nation’s president, Bashar al-Assad, on Friday as firmly in control and increasingly willing to unleash one of the region’s most potent militaries on badly overmatched opposition groups.

The officials also said Assad’s inner circle is “remaining steadfast,” with little indication that senior figures in the regime are inclined to peel off, despite efforts by the Obama administration and its allies to use sanctions and other measures to create a wave of defections that would undermine Assad.

Assad “is very much in charge,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official responsible for tracking the conflict, adding that Assad and his inner circle seem convinced that the rebellion is being driven by external foes and that they are equipped to withstand all but a large-scale military intervention.
... (much more in article)

In contingency planning, one must consider "a large-scale military intervention" as a contingency. Given the geographic proximity, one must first consider Turkey (sans US-NATO to keep it basic) as the intervenor, giving my two basic hypotheticals (presented a few pages ago):

1. If Turkey were to proceed with a conventional armed intervention - a 1 on 1 with Syria with full commitment of military forces by both states, who would win ?

No US-NATO support of any kind for the Turks; and Russia and China stay out of it completely (other than making noises about "aggressive war", etc.).

2. If Turkey were to proceed with a conventional armed intervention into Syria, and Iran responds with a conventional armed attack on Turkey - a 2 on 1 with full commitment of military forces by all three states, who would win ?

No US-NATO support of any kind for the Turks; and Russia and China stay out of it completely (other than making noises about "aggressive war", etc.).

If you want a definition of "win" - find, fix and finish by destroying the enemy's will to resist.

Contingency planning would also include diplomatic solutions. Here is one suggested to me from reading TZ and its columnists over the last few months:

A Turkish-brokered diplomatic deal involving Turkey, Iran and the Arab League (Saudi and the Gulf states as the money partners) being the "peacekeepers" and guarantors of limited negotiated external interests (Russia-China; US-NATO) - a reverse Sykes-Picot, in effect.

That would enhance Turkey's "good guy" image, but would probably involve some other goodies that the AKP appears to want.

Finally, my personal position stands alongside Gian Gentile and Peter Munson.

Regards

Mike

Hey Ray: Cooperation and Friendship !

[Fuchs]

If you want a definition of "win" - find, fix and finish by destroying the enemy's will to resist.

I swear someday I will learn where this strange widespread insistence on "fix" in such simple three word rules comes from. Pretty sure the UK FMs are not the root of this obsession with the actually unnecessary "fix" stage.

[Dayuhan]

I swear someday I will learn where this strange widespread insistence on "fix" in such simple three word rules comes from.

It sounds cooler if they all start with "f", and the sequence has to be three.

[ganulv]

I swear someday I will learn where this strange widespread insistence on "fix" in such simple three word rules comes from. Pretty sure the UK FMs are not the root of this obsession with the actually unnecessary "fix" stage.

They have a tendency to insist that words are supposed to mean something. I’ve wondered the same myself. Are Fs #1 and #2 redundant (in the same way as a fellow I know who insists on signing his name as <Dr. King, PhD>)? Or does F #2 mean ‘keep in place’ (which is at least part of what I assume is meant when I read that Rangers support CAG operations)?

[ganulv]

But given the way things are in the Islamic world, Islam is ber alles!

When the mosque is the only civil institution not systematically snuffed out of existence by the bloaty strongman and his cronies over the decades-long course of their rule--because there are lines it is not smart to cross and because someone has to provide social services since most of the tax revenues are going into your offshore accounts--you end up with situations like these.

[Dayuhan]

... for clarification on some points.

So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

How do you propose to apply this pressure, and what end do you expect it to achieve?

Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

If the proposal is to remove the regime without arming the rebels... in your opinion, would it be possible to remove the regime purely with air/missile strikes, or would you propose an actual invasion... or is there a third option?

[davidbfpo]

This is JMA's Post 383, dated 03-10-2012 which he refers to and brought forward for ease:

Opinion: The killings of opposition groups – men, women and children – by the minority Syrian regime must stop.

Opinion: I realise that Syria is a complex and unique problem.

Fact: The old Middle East Sunni/Shia is one major issue then there is that of Russia having Mediterranean ‘warm water’ port facilities there.

Fact: Then we have Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who stand to get scolded if Syria burns.

Fact: I accept that any talk of military intervention by the US and maybe the EU will be interpreted by Russia and others as a pretext for regime change.

Fact: Regime change in Syria will most likely mean the end of access to Syrian port facilities for the Russians.

Fact: A new Sunni Arab government in Syria will change the balance in the Middle East significantly.

Fact: There are many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in Syria.

Fact: The insurrection in Syria has been bubbling for more than a year with increased intensity over the recent months.

Opinion: The longer the insurrection lasts and the more violent it becomes the more difficult it will be to impose a peaceful settlement in Syria.

Fact: When challenged with an insurrection has one of two choices – act or abdicate.

(Negotiation is the soft route to abdication but few regimes willingly relinquish power and tend to try to hold on too long until overthrown or forced to surrender.)

Opinion: The Alawite minority will try to cling to power until a negotiated settlement is no longer possible.

Opinion: I am told that there is a saying among the (15% minority) Alawites and that is, “we either hand individually or we hang together”. I believe they have chosen the latter.

Opinion: If the Alawites lose power they will become a persecuted minority (and also on the receiving end of some serious payback). Will they submit to democratic elections willingly? No.

Opinion: The Alawites should therefore be removed from power by the quickest means as this will end the current killing and also reduce future payback effected on the Alawites.

Fact: There are clearly efforts being made to bring economic (sanctions) and diplomatic pressure to bear on the Syrian regime to end the carnage. Safe in the arms of Mother Russia the Syrian regime is unmoved.

Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

What are the possibilities that Russia will change its position?

Opinion: Not much… until the writing is on the wall for the Assad regime and then some.

So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

Who should do this?

Opinion: Anyone other than the US … or US assets placed under direct French or Brit military command.

Anyone other than the US able to do this?

Opinion: No. Military intervention is therefore unlikely as the Germans and the Dutch have already surrendered (no doubt with more to follow).

Why should the US not lead the intervention?

Opinion: Because (based on their track record) they will cock it up.

Where to from here?

Opinion: wait and see.

[JMA]

Not as an election cheap-shot but I wonder how many USians actually see the obvious:

Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur in confronting the Russian bear

[AdamG]

Here we go again, same old stuff again...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/wo...-analysis.html

[JMA]

Here we go again, same old stuff again...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/wo...-analysis.html

Same old stuff but the essential point seems lost on some of the smart guys around here.

In such circumstances - as are found in Syria right now - the best plan is to 'kill the snake' by a blow to its head.

One explosion - like what happened - has almost achieved that.

Instead the smart guys - aka idiots - have allowed the rebels to be armed to the extent a viscous civil war with ongoing t*t-for-tat butchery is now inevitable because they don't have the smarts to comprehend the simple solution.

[Dayuhan]

Omitting vast quantities of extraneous material and trying to concentrate on the point....

In such circumstances - as are found in Syria right now - the best plan is to 'kill the snake' by a blow to its head.

One explosion - like what happened - has almost achieved that.

Deliver the blow to the head, and what do you expect to happen? Even assuming the blow is accurate and effective, you're left with a power vacuum, a number of local factions fighting to fill that vacuum, and various meddling neighbors trying to advance their own interests by supporting and arming their preferred factions... in short, the same vicious civil war that you were trying to prevent.

Do you really think that an attack on Assad or the core of his military at any point in this process would have resolved this mess favorably? If so, why? Granted it's a moot point, since even you agree the US shouldn't do it and we all know nobody else would have... but even on a hypothetical level I have to wonder what you think the outcome of such action would be.

Instead the smart guys - aka idiots - have allowed the rebels to be armed to the extent a viscous civil war with ongoing t*t-for-tat butchery is now inevitable because they don't have the smarts to comprehend the simple solution.

What "simple solution" would that be? If it's really that simple, surely you can describe it.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by JMA

Opinion: The killings of opposition groups – men, women and children – by the minority Syrian regime must stop.

Fact: Then we have Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who stand to get scolded if Syria burns.

Fact: A new Sunni Arab government in Syria will change the balance in the Middle East significantly.

Fact: There are many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in Syria.

Fact: The insurrection in Syria has been bubbling for more than a year with increased intensity over the recent months.

Opinion: The longer the insurrection lasts and the more violent it becomes the more difficult it will be to impose a peaceful settlement in Syria.


Opinion: If the Alawites lose power they will become a persecuted minority (and also on the receiving end of some serious payback). Will they submit to democratic elections willingly? No.

Opinion: The Alawites should therefore be removed from power by the quickest means as this will end the current killing and also reduce future payback effected on the Alawites.

Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

Who should do this?

Opinion: Anyone other than the US … or US assets placed under direct French or Brit military command.

Anyone other than the US able to do this?

Opinion: No. Military intervention is therefore unlikely as the Germans and the Dutch have already surrendered (no doubt with more to follow).

Why should the US not lead the intervention?

Opinion: Because (based on their track record) they will cock it up.

Where to from here?

Opinion: wait and see.

So at the end of this rant, and by the way I agree with your facts and most of your opinions, your only recommendation is to wait and see? If that is the case, then you are in agreement with most of the world leaders who don't want to get involved, many for good reasons.

The U.S. is over extended as it is, and the last thing we need is another quagmire, especially during election year, so Assad will probably act aggressively until after our election in NOV, then he'll have to reassess.

I'll go out on limb and offer an opinion on a potential course of action. Assuming there will be an international intervention, the lead nation makes a secret deal with elements of the Syrian military it can co-opt, and then facilitates a hard strike against those that can't enabling a coup of sorts. Simultaneously the intervening nation will have to negotiate a cease fire with the insurgents/rebels to facilitate the establishment of a new government (they will have to give the military leadership some breathing space to re-establish control). Russia and China will be marginalized if someone pursues this course of action, so the world will have to unite against them diplomatically to limit their potentially hostile influence towards the intervening states. Iran's relationship with elements in Syria will have to be severed, and of course AQ in Syria will have to be hunted down and killed while simultaneously building the peace. Not to mention these things never go as planned, but if another nation wants to try.........

I hope you realize that I am describing a no win scenario unless Murphy is taking an extended vacation. I hate watching innocents getting killed as much as the next person, but I suspect intervention would result in more, not less blood shed.

[JMA]

Omitting vast quantities of extraneous material and trying to concentrate on the point....

Deliver the blow to the head, and what do you expect to happen? Even assuming the blow is accurate and effective, you're left with a power vacuum, a number of local factions fighting to fill that vacuum, and various meddling neighbors trying to advance their own interests by supporting and arming their preferred factions... in short, the same vicious civil war that you were trying to prevent.

Do you really think that an attack on Assad or the core of his military at any point in this process would have resolved this mess favorably? If so, why? Granted it's a moot point, since even you agree the US shouldn't do it and we all know nobody else would have... but even on a hypothetical level I have to wonder what you think the outcome of such action would be.

What "simple solution" would that be? If it's really that simple, surely you can describe it.

LOL... pass.

I do suggest though that you try to cobble together a personal statement of some 500-600 words on the Syrian situation. Not holding my breath.