Syria under Bashir Assad: crumbling now?

[Madhu]

It's likely that many of you have already seen the following piece:

Always bureaucratically adept, even if operationally incompetent in far too many cases, the CIA already has the Washington end of the action. But if weapons are to be supplied, it is essential to call on the only Americans who can tell the difference between Sunni bad guys who only want to oppress other Syrians and the really bad guys who happen to be waging their global jihad in Syria. What's needed are true experts, people who really speak the region's Arabic: the regular U.S. Army and Marine Corps officers who successfully sponsored and then effectively controlled the Sunni tribal insurgents in Iraq whose "awakening" defeated the jihadists who were attacking U.S. troops.

This sort of splits the difference between the Coindinista/Cointra argument but only at its very edges. Certain skills are useful in retention, it seems, but a civil war with the US supporting one side is something altogether different than a colonial pacification.

This is above my head, so interested in thoughts on the piece.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...syria?page=0,1

[ganulv]

I’m not quite sure I buy that the CIA is operationally inept. I’m not saying that they aren’t, but given the nature of their operations, how would we know?

And given Mr. Luttwak’s consulting work with the military I’m not quite sure that his piece doesn’t amount to concern trolling.

[Madhu]

But everything seems like some kind of trolling when it comes to foreign policy commentary these days, given the contracts and contacts and backgrounds of so many people involved writing pieces. Everyone has a consultancy.

As for the CIA, I have no idea either but there is always a certain vibe from some writers that are former CIA that irritates - a certain vainglory. True for the military as well.

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by Madhu

But everything seems like some kind of trolling when it comes to foreign policy commentary these days, given the contracts and contacts and backgrounds of so many people involved writing pieces. Everyone has a consultancy.

I also think there is something inherent in the publishing biz, especially the publishing online biz. I have been trying to break into freelance writing over the past few months and the experience has lead me to see some of what is going on behind the curtain as pieces make their way out for public consumption. A lot of the material that ends up online is space-filler. And if it gets more views via pushing buttons, all the better (for the publisher, editor, and author, at least; not necessarily for the public).

Originally Posted by Madhu

As for the CIA, I have no idea either but there is always a certain vibe from some writers that are former CIA that irritates - a certain vainglory. True for the military as well.

I always wonder how representative those guys are. One of the things I know a lot about is anthropology. Most of the rock star anthropologists within academia and the few that from time to time get public notice are typically, at least in my opinion, good but not great. Chance and a talent for marketing themselves put them in the limelight.

[carl]

Mr. Luttwak stated:

"What's needed are true experts, people who really speak the region's Arabic: the regular U.S. Army and Marine Corps officers who successfully sponsored and then effectively controlled the Sunni tribal insurgents in Iraq whose "awakening" defeated the jihadists who were attacking U.S. troops."

If he actually believes that, I think he is very mistaken as to what happened in Iraq when the Sunni tribes changed their minds. First off, those officers (like Cavguy) were experts in what was going on in their part of Iraq because they had been hanging around on the ground, in their part of Iraq, for a long time. And they were only so expert.

Second off, I am not sure the tribes were sponsored or "effectively controlled" by anybody but themselves. They came to their own conclusions and we had people on the ground at the time who had the knowledge and capability to take advantage of that. Patriquin, McFarland and the guys describe in 'The Snake Eaters' aren't hanging out in schwarma shops on the outskirts of Alepo right now.

Third off, the tribes in Iraq were, from what I've read, fairly cohesive social entities. When the sheiks changed their minds, it meant something. I don't know what the state of the tribes are in Syria. Does Mr. Luttwak?

This statement by Mr. Luttwak seems facile.

He also said this:

"Do not invite an equal and opposite response by another great power. "

The great power he is referring to is Russia. The Soviet Union was a great power. Russia is a demographic disaster ruled by a kleptocracy with an economy that is dependent, still, upon selling extracted resources. They are afflicted with a simmering insurgency (cies) in their south that they haven't been able to make go away in decades. Their military is not so hot. They may have been able to beat up on Georgia but that does not a 'great power' make them. In my view this statement by Mr. Luttwak ascribes power to a state that mostly is nervy.

They will get away with that for only so long (hopefully).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emAiiXpA8Y