Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Bill Moore]

Before this debate gets too heated for no reason, we already have proxies. We're supporting to some degree the FSA. The level of support we're providing is probably classified so we can't really debate it. Iran, Turkey, Saudi, and others also have their proxies. The bottom line is when you review our history of using proxies we don't have a good track record using proxies to achieve decisive effects. Unless we have the dominant proxy force we'll just prolong the fight and maintain some level of influence, but beyond that what exactly? If all we want is influence then good enough.

[Dayuhan]

Is this '20 Questions'?

Only one... but no worries if you can't answer it. Seems nobody else can either.

Before this debate gets too heated for no reason, we already have proxies. We're supporting to some degree the FSA. The level of support we're providing is probably classified so we can't really debate it. Iran, Turkey, Saudi, and others also have their proxies.

I'm sure we have provided some support to the FSA, but others probably have as well, and I'm not sure the support is sufficient to make them "our" proxy.

The bottom line is when you review our history of using proxies we don't have a good track record using proxies to achieve decisive effects.

Amen. Does anyone else have a consistently good track record of using proxies?

Unless we have the dominant proxy force we'll just prolong the fight and maintain some level of influence, but beyond that what exactly? If all we want is influence then good enough.

Very true... having a proxy gets you nowhere unless your proxy wins. One of our problems in the past has been a tendency to escalate support when they don't win, eventually leading to boots on the ground.

Even if a proxy does win, our sponsorship is no real guarantee of influence. Proxies do not always do as they are told... especially if they've won. The idea that we can just choose a group, make them into winners, and control them seems fanciful at best.

The missing piece here remains "why"? What vital US interest is at stake? What goals would we being trying to achieve by taking sides in this conflict? If winning is achieving your objective, how do we win if the objective isn't clear from the start?

[jcustis]

I just read the CNN story about everyone getting worked up over the UN inviting Iran to the next round of talks.

Without Iran's involvement, there won't be a sustainable arrangement to clean up the mess. Although the UN created more work, I hope we can get past any dramas, knuckle down, and just do the extra work required rather than planting a guidon because we don't want to expend the effort.

The Kingdom, Qatar, Turkey, and Jordan might as well be factored in also because this a a multidimensional problem spanning resources, arms, borders, refugees, and on.

If the talks aren't inclusive enough, lingering issues will we just waiting to throw a wrench in things. Is the US trying to steer this to a Alawite and FSA-only dance?

[jcustis]

The missing piece here remains "why"? What vital US interest is at stake? What goals would we being trying to achieve by taking sides in this conflict? If winning is achieving your objective, how do we win if the objective isn't clear from the start?

Although it won't be articulated all that simply, the objective is a stable Syria and a stable region. It might not mean that the current opposition "wins" this, because it cannot be a simple zero sum game. Iran won't stand for it, and unless we are ready to throw down with Iran right now, the best approach is going to be a negotiated settlement which addresses Alawite and Iranian concerns. Bashir doesn't need to stay, but putting all the Alawites and the Sunni Syrians who have supported Assad out on their assses will definitely make a deeper mess.

This isn't a proposition of winning and I think anyone who is thinking like that in the beltway is delusional.

[CrowBat]

Before this debate gets too heated for no reason, we already have proxies. We're supporting to some degree the FSA.

...the USA _supported_ the FSyA, and then with a little bit of 'non-lethal' aid: this was never enough to turn it into a true 'army' (in sense of what I described above), and stopped a few weeks ago. And since it's non-lethal aid, it shouldn't be 'classified'.

Measured by amount, AFAIK, Kuwait is providing most of support for insurgency, followed by Saudi Salafists (though not Wahhabists; these two are not the same), then Qataris etc.

But anyway, the FSyA was - in theory - a perfect proxy: non-religious, multi-ethnic, tollerant. The problem is (and remains), that its damn, stupid, non-religious, multi-ethnic and tollerant elements inside Syria, do not want to hear any kind of commands from a bunch of ex-Jihadi Moslem Brothers, various ex-political-oppositionals- (including quite a few ex-Leninists) cum-businessmen or ex-regime-members-cum-very-clever-talkingheads (with accounts on Austrian and Swiss banks, of course), that gathered outside of Syria in the last 40+ years. Simply because majority of these dumb revolutionaries that groupped within the FSyA have neither ever heard of these, nor do they find any useful reason for listening to their advice. So, if they didn't sell themselves already to the first idiotic Wahhabi from such an important place like Mauritania that run across their way, why should they sell themselves to anybody else?

That is a true 'bomb surprise', then this is what the revolutionaries have said right from the start - but, hell, that's the reason why such fine, 'freedom, liberty, democracy and free trade' loving nations like the USA can't cooperate with the FSyA, because those stupids do not want to accept a government they do not consider 'their'...

Sigh... when I think of the content of the last paragraph alone, I'm not surprised any more there are people like Dayuhan. Buddy: you simply cannot even imagine ever coming to the wet dream of cooperating with such people like the FSyA. You can't buy them, you can't bribe them, once you've given them the arms and money, you can't even control them.

OK, so instead of you demanding from me a detailled plan for how to instal a US-proxy in Syria, you'll get me to forget about this idea of mine.

I sincerely hope, you're felling better now, then your ideas have been proven 'correct' - beyond any doubt.

Unless we have the dominant proxy force we'll just prolong the fight and maintain some level of influence, but beyond that what exactly? If all we want is influence then good enough.

For a country that's maintaining military presence (or any kind of 'military installations') in more territories than there are members of the UN, you all sound very confused to me. :P

Let's be 'rude', and bring it to the bottom line. Or few, 'really important', bottom lines:

1.) In Syria, there's a population of 20+ million, 90% of which is younger than 60% and 80% younger than 30. That means: either one leaves something like 15 million of youngsters there to the mercy of all the possible extremists, and then pays the price for the next 40-50 years (unless they all either run out of steam or kill themselves in various suicide terrorist attacks), or there is an interest to 'do something' to prevent that from happening.

Feel free to pick your choice.

2.) Syria might not swim in oil, but it's got some, and there is gas too (supposedly, there is a lot of both of it there, but it's so deep and there is no infrastructure to exploit it, it would cost some to get it; so, 'never mind'). Plus, a) the country is a 'hole' in the pipeline spanning all the countries around the Mediterranean, and b) it lies on the possible route for pipelines between specific other places (some say Iraq, but who can know...), and the EU. Under the present regime, that's never going to change, or if (i.e. say, the regime survives and then finally constructs that pipeline), then 'even that' oil/gas source, plus the pipeline in question is going to end in Russian hands.

Given there are (very influential) people in the USA who have invested billions into getting oil and gas from Central Asia, and (less influential) people very curious to screw up the Ruskies and break their monopoloy on gas exports to the EU (thank you, Schrder!)... given there (also 'less influential', but definitely 'clever') people curious to screw up both the Saudis and the Ruskies, and export Qatari gas via Iraq and Syria to the EU too (no matter how much the Saudis insist on controlling such exports and Qataris say they've got enough liquid gas carriers to export their gas for the next 50 or so years).... Guess, that's got something to do with something called 'competition'. They say such 'things' might be of quite some importance in the USA... or was it that way in Albania?

Perhaps I'm just simply mixing plenty of things. Who knows? Whatever... provided I'm not, this all might mean: hey, there could be something called 'economic interest' to 'do something' too?!?

But perhaps that with 'economic interest' is something we should better leave to the Russians... or Chinese?

3.) I think there used to be one thing 'important' for the USA, in the 'good ol' times', called 'free trade'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it could be the USA fought one of their first wars ever precisely for the purpose of being able to run the free trade in the Med (it might be a hear-say, but rumour has it the affair was called something like 'Barbary Wars' or something of that kind...). Under Assads, there was no free trade in Syria: the entire economy was controlled by the rulling clique. A country of 20+ mil people in urgent need of complete reconstruction might therefore be interesting for investment, construction business - even tourism (consider how much was there to see, before the war, and hoping it's still going to be there when the war is over) etc.

But, who knows? Perhaps the good ol' USA are not interested in such things like free trade and commerce any more...

Please, tell me that's so, and I'll surely feel better.

4.) I know that Assad regime was 'popular' because it was proven as 'no danger' for Israel. And that there are enough talkin'heads who would always prefer him to any kind of extremist- but especially any kind of 'pluralist/democratic' administration in Syria (imagine there being no threat for Israel coming from Syria any more... geek!). So, such a development might be 'bad' for big defence business. But guess, they would never in their wildest dreams come to such ideas like to create some sort of an imaginary threat - like few weeks ago when explaining to the Emiratis that they must buy plenty of additional F-16s, because Iran's getting S-300s from Russia (but sure!).

So, well, perhaps they wouldn't buy the F-16s or F-35s, but it could be... it is at least 'distantly imaginable'... that once they get themselves free from Assadists, Iranians and Hezbollah, the Syrians might come to the idea to rebuild their military and security services. It might be of some significance - I don't know, teach me please - that they'll have to buy all the equipment and arms for these... And in connection with that about free trade and then the point 5 (see below), well, perhaps that might make the country interesting...?

No? Ok, then not.

5.) Another positive effect of such a development would...no, I'm daydreaming again, and I'm not specific enough... but well, I'll complete this thought as well, you like it or not... could be the Iranian loss of influence in the area, especially safe 'land-' (after airborne via Iraq and Turkey) connections to the Hezbollah. Some say that this would be good in preventing Hezbollah - an organization that might be on a few lists of 'terrorist organizations' around the world, who can know? - from getting even more arms than it already has. Perhaps this is in some sort of US and/or Western interest too?

Ah, that's NOT interesting any more? Oh, then sorry for such a stupid idea.

6.) Last but not least, I've heard there are not few people crazy enough to think that the US help for Syrian insurgents would recover the US image between such of its 'allies' like KSA, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar etc. - most of which meanwhile (some since longer) actually consider the USA an enemy (if for no other reason then because they concluded that Washington has sold the 'Arab Iraq' to 'Iranian Shi'a takfirs').

Ah yes... sorry: since when do USA care any more about their image in the world?

Excuse me for disturbing you with all of this, dear Americans. Never mind. After writing all of this down, it's crystal even to such a stupid like me that the USA _cannot_ - repeat: cannot - have any kind of 'vital', even less so any kind of 'important' reasons, and definitely no chance of ever finding any kind of 'objectives' of getting involved there...

[davidbfpo]

A joint CNN-Guardian story, based on a single defector who provided fifty-five thousand images of dead detainees and the report by experienced war crimes investigators, sponsored by Qatar, appeared this evening and just in time for the diplomatic dance over a Geneva conference. Timing aside what do we have?

From the investigator's report:

The inquiry team was mandated to determine the credibility of a defector from Syria whose occupation prior to his defection was in the service of the military police of the Syrian government. In that capacity, for many years, he had been in the military police and in that role it fell to him to photograph scenes of crimes. With the onset of the civil war the nature of his occupation changed. His duties, and those of his colleagues, now were to photograph and document the bodies of those brought from their places of detention to a military hospital.

The bodies he photographed since the civil war began, showed signs of starvation, brutal beatings, strangulation, and other forms of torture and killing.

The defector who was code-named “Caesar” by the inquiry team had, during the course of his work, smuggled out some tens of thousands of images of corpses so photographed by his colleagues and himself. Other similar images have been smuggled out by other people. In all, approximately fifty-five thousand (55,000) images have, to date, been made available outside Syria by these processes. As there were some four or five photographs taken of each body this approximates to there being images of about eleven thousand (11,000) dead detainees.

Graphic images. Link to report:http://http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1...ution-tort.pdf

The CNN report:http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/20/wo...our/index.html and The Guardian report:http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ria-war-crimes

A short reminder how the civil war began when President Bashir Assad made a speech to the parliament:http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/t...-changed-syria

[Firn]

It is of course difficult to know to which extent the report is true, but there can hardly be a doubt that the regime tortured and killed a considerable amount of it's captured opponents. The material seems to indicated that it was done systematically on a considerable scale with orders from high above. Sadly the level of brutality does not surprise, nor the cynicism of calling strangulations and so forth 'breathing problems'.

Under U.S. Pressure, U.N. Withdraws Iran’s Invitation to Syria Talks.

WASHINGTON — Under intense American pressure, the United Nations on Monday withdrew an invitation to Iran to attend the much-anticipated Syria peace conference, reversing a decision announced a day earlier.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, whose decision to invite Iran had threatened to unravel the Syria talks less than 48 hours before the scheduled start, issued a statement on Monday rescinding the invitation. The United States had said it was surprised by the invitation because Iran had not agreed to conditions for the talks, to be held on Wednesday in Montreux, Switzerland.

It is rather difficult to see what the conference can achieve, even more so now as perhaps the most important player on the side of Assad is not part of it.

The United States’ longstanding position has been that Iran, a major backer of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, must publicly endorse the mandate of the conference, which is outlined in a communiqué from a 2012 meeting in Geneva. That mandate says that the conference’s purpose is to negotiate the establishment of a transitional administration that would govern Syria by the “mutual consent” of Mr. Assad’s government and the Syrian opposition

.

[CrowBat]

The entire exercise with 'Geneva II' is just a vaste of time. It's a search for an excuse in form of, 'well, we did try to bring them to negotiating table'.

Talking about future of Syria without Iran is useless. If for no other reason then because people like Soleimani (CO IRGC-Qods) said they'll never abandon their friends. And when Soleimani says such things, then it's actually Khamenei who's speaking, then in regards of such affairs like Syria, Soleimani can't open his mouth without Khamenei's permission.

Other than this, it's important to note that a large part of the SNC is never going to negotiate with Assad; they said so only some 98 times so far (of which about 70 times already back in 2011), and thus it's no surprise they have separated from the rest of the SNC (few days ago) and are not going there.

Anyway, the following has finally underwent the 'from rumours to headlines' process:
Syria's Assad accused of boosting Al-Qaeda with secret oil deals

Western intelligence suggests Bashar al-Assad collaborating with jihadists to persuade West the uprising is terrorist-led

...
The Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad has funded and co-operated with al-Qaeda in a complex double game even as the terrorists fight Damascus, according to new allegations by Western intelligence agencies, rebels and al-Qaeda defectors.

Jabhat al-Nusra, and the even more extreme Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS), the two al-Qaeda affiliates operating in Syria, have both been financed by selling oil and gas from wells under their control to and through the regime, intelligence sources have told The Daily Telegraph.

Rebels and defectors say the regime also deliberately released militant prisoners to strengthen jihadist ranks at the expense of moderate rebel forces. The aim was to persuade the West that the uprising was sponsored by Islamist militants including al-Qaeda as a way of stopping Western support for it.
...
Intelligence gathered by Western secret services suggested the regime began collaborating actively with these groups again in the spring of 2013. When Jabhat al-Nusra seized control of Syria’s most lucrative oil fields in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour, it began funding its operations in Syria by selling crude oil, with sums raised in the millions of dollars.
...

Just don't tell me I didn't tell you...

[JMA]

Only one... but no worries if you can't answer it. Seems nobody else can either.

I am not sure why you believe people need to respond to your questions?

Who do you think you are?

[Dayuhan]

I am not sure why you believe people need to respond to your questions?

Of course you don't need to answer the question. I don't expect you to, because I don't think you can.

Who do you think you are?

Just another person commenting on this forum, no different from you.

On might just as easily ask why you think your statements should go unquestioned.

[CrowBat]

Dayuhan,
you've got answers to all of your questions, several times already. You keep on asking 'what vital and pressing interests' should the USA have in Syria. I listed these already three times - and you still come back with the same question. Do you think you'll get different answers if you ask the same question for the 4th time?

It's your problem - or, better said: your insistence - on ignoring answers you get. What do you expect to get in response? 'Respect'? 'Understanding'?

In other cases you ask silly questions. Apparently, you think that if you ask them and then ignore plainly obvious answers, that's going to imply you have clue what are you talking about, while 'your opponents' don't?

Lookie here:

If the Saudis are doing it and it's working for them, why do we need to be involved?

This is such a childish question, that one can only laugh while answering it.

But OK, if you need it, here you are: because if somebody else - in this case the Saudis - 'do it', they'll do it 'their way', and not the way that is our interest. In the case of Saudi Arabian involvement in Syria, that translates into a creation of another Wahhabist state. Why? Not because I've got it from any sort of crystal ball, but because it's a matter of fact that Saudi Arabia is a state where Wahhabism is official religion. It's also a matter of fact that the Saudis preach religious intollerance already to their kids in the school. So, provided you decide to engage more than two cells of your brain, the only logical conclusion is that by letting the Saudis 'reshape' Syria, you're automatically leaving them to reshape it the only way they can, which is the Wahhabist way. And that with all the possible negative consequences - for all of us - foremost including something you appear not to have ever heard about, named 'militant extremism'.

So, if you now tell me that you're from ground school and have no clue where to look for Middle East on the map, or have never heard about what repercussions Saudi-supported militant extremism can have for your very own backside too...no problem: keep on asking such questions.

I'll be pleased to explain you few things about an affair they call '9/11' too.

But otherwise, get down from your ivory tower.

[JMA]

Of course you don't need to answer the question. I don't expect you to, because I don't think you can.

LOL... child psychology. Is that the best an ex-Peace Corps can offer?

[JMA]

Dayuhan,
you've got answers to all of your questions, several times already. You keep on asking 'what vital and pressing interests' should the USA have in Syria. I listed these already three times - and you still come back with the same question. Do you think you'll get different answers if you ask the same question for the 4th time?

It's your problem - or, better said: your insistence - on ignoring answers you get. What do you expect to get in response? 'Respect'? 'Understanding'?

He is lonely out there in the boonies... just trying to play devil's advocate to entertain himself.

[JMA]

Before this debate gets too heated ... we already have proxies.

Bill, using proxies is one thing but using them effectively is quite another.

What we see is another example of rank incompetence by all except the Russians (who once again have the measure of the US).

[CrowBat]

Actually, one should not depend for wrong-titled media reports (like the following one) to 'know' the USA 'have proxies' in Syria: the proxies in question are those of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as can be understood when paying attention at important pieces of text:

US secretly backs rebels to fight al Qaeda in Syria

...According to two sources – one whose brother was at the meeting: "They talked about the fighting with ISIS, and the Americans encouraged the commanders to attack."

The Syrian Revolutionary Front, whose main commander, Jamal Maarouf, is allied to Saudi Arabia, and the Army of Islam, a new coalition of the moderate rebels sponsored by Qatar, have continued to liaise with the CIA and Saudi and Qatari intelligence, others close to meetings said.

These groups received a boost in arms supplies. According to a source who facilitates governments' lethal and non-lethal aid to Western-friendly groups: "Qatar sent arms first. Saudi Arabia didn't want to be out done, so one week before the attack on ISIS, they gave 80 tons of weaponry, including heavy machine guns".
...

'Encouraging' somebody is not making him/her anybody's proxy. Only direct support does.

[JMA]

A joint CNN-Guardian story, based on a single defector who provided fifty-five thousand images of dead detainees and the report by experienced war crimes investigators, sponsored by Qatar, ... [snip]

I wonder why people are surprised by the torture and murder of Syrian anti-government dissidents in custody?

Because the western world freaks out over what THEY define as war crimes and atrocities how does that connect to the Syrians - all Syrians - as to what they feel bound by or are prepared to carry out?

There is a fine line between naivety and stupidity... I believe that line has been crossed.

Churchill understood the situation well:

"A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him."
- Sir Winston S. Churchill, 1952.

[JMA]

'Encouraging' somebody is not making him/her anybody's proxy. Only direct support does.

It is how it is done.

Too many examples (in the past) of lone or small teams of CIA operatives attempting to direct the opposition forces in exchange for weapons and other support where these CIA individuals are woefully unqualified militarily together with this a near total lack of knowledge of the complexities of the situation on the ground. Sadly pathetic.

The one consistent aim of the US since 9/11 has been to go after Al Qaeda and prevent their expansion. In terms of Syria this has been a spectacular failure.

[jmm99]

The one consistent aim of the US since 9/11 has been [1] to go after Al Qaeda and [2] prevent their expansion. In terms of Syria this has been a spectacular failure.

The US has been consistent in going after AQ Base - we have killed a lot of them via direct actions and drones.

We should have a discussion somewhere other than in this thread - a SWC thread may already exist - on "preventing AQ expansion". An ounce of prevention now may free a pound of care later.

Moderator adds: a new thread was started 24th January 2014 at:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=19947

But, having said that, US "prevention" efforts generally have been less than "shock and awe"-inspiring. Our "state building" operations in Iraq and Astan were certainly intended to prevent AQ expansion. Now, thousands of lives and just south of $ 2 trillion later, we have basically nada - those two "state building" efforts have been the "spectacular failures".

A subsidiary issue for that separate discussion is how far afield does the US go in preventing the expansion of AQ "franchises" (as opposed to hitting AQ Base). In short, the feasibility and the costs of mounting those operations (whatever they might be) may well be prohibitive with respect to local "AQ" groups.

In retrospect from 9/11, the US has been successful in small direct actions and drone strikes against AQ Base and the leadership of closely-tied franchises on an international scale. The US has also been successful within CONUS in prosecuting hundreds of AQ inspired local terrs - with only one shootout (Detroit MI) that I know of.

Finally, this past situation should not exist today:

Too many examples (in the past) of lone or small teams of CIA operatives attempting to direct the opposition forces in exchange for weapons and other support where these CIA individuals are woefully unqualified militarily together with this a near total lack of knowledge of the complexities of the situation on the ground. Sadly pathetic.

We have the green light for joint Title 50 (CIA and other intel agencies) - Title 10 (DoD) operations. The questions go to the wisdom of when and where to use them - and how much.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

JMM99 asked (just):

We should have a discussion somewhere other than in this thread - a SWC thread may already exist - on "preventing AQ expansion". An ounce of prevention now may free a pound of care later.

I don't think there is such a thread, although the theme has IIRC appeared in discussions. I did search thread titles using intervention and prevention, finding nothing suitable. So I shall ponder creating a new thread.

[jmm99]

Regards

Mike