Syria: a civil war (closed)

[JMA]

... the UNSC is working out a resolution on Syria. 300-400 already dead but not to expect any quick action from the UNSC.

I would (if I were the US president ) give the Russians until the end of the month to reign in the Syrian regime or will offer the people of Syria protection from the excesses of the regime.

The momentum is building nicely...

[Tukhachevskii]

... the UNSC is working out a resolution on Syria. 300-400 already dead but not to expect any quick action from the UNSC.

I would (if I were the US president ) give the Russians until the end of the month to reign in the Syrian regime or will offer the people of Syria protection from the excesses of the regime.

The momentum is building nicely...

If you were President of any country I would be afraid, very afraid.


Momentum? For what? Do you really think the Russians are going to take pointers (let alone orders) from the Yanks? Do you really think the Russians will get overflight rights from the Turks or the Georgians? Since when do te Russians care about protecting anyone else? They're old school as I am and don't see the point in intervention (humantiarian or otherwise unless absolutely necessary to maintain global/regional order a la Burke; they and I are adherents of Luttwak on that point, just see Libya).OTOH, in your world (which, IMO, is a completely different dimension) who would protect the Syrians from the Russian attempts to protect them?! (insert approproate emoticon)

[JMA]

Momentum? For what? Do you really think the Russians are going to take pointers (let alone orders) from the Yanks? Do you really think the Russians will get overflight rights from the Turks or the Georgians? Since when do te Russians care about protecting anyone else? They're old school as I am and don't see the point in intervention (humantiarian or otherwise unless absolutely necessary to maintain global/regional order a la Burke; they and I are adherents of Luttwak on that point, just see Libya).OTOH, in your world (which, IMO, is a completely different dimension) who would protect the Syrians from the Russian attempts to protect them?! (insert approproate emoticon)

Momentum for a revolution and the ouster of the regime.

Remember the option you did not see as likely:

... but I am certain that things aren't as clear cut as statements/commentators that proclaim "Asad will fall" predict them to be.

Maybe you want to reassess your position on Syria?

You misinterpret my statement (seems to happen often and I use misinterpret as opposed to misrepresent).

What did you think I meant by the Russians reigning in the regime in a few days (by the end of the month)? Was it not obvious that given the time frame I was suggesting political and diplomatic pressure? Now why did you jump to the conclusion that I was suggesting the Russians should intervene militarily in Syria?

So what the West should do (not holding my breath on the US doing much) is to say to the Syrian people - "how can we help you free yourself from the death-grip of this brutal regime?" - and see what comes out and be prepare to act.

Keep all the options open and one can always say to the Russians - "you had your chance to contribute, but you blew it."

With regard to Luttwak what he explains as THE EASY AND RELIABLE WAY OF DEFEATING ALL INSURGENCIES EVERYWHERE as the last section of this article is correct. But who has the will to do this? Who will be willing to out-terrorize the insurgents?

Mugabe, Sri Lanka, Gaddafi, China, etc etc but it is not an option for any western democracy. In Rhodesia we knew this as "the African Way" but it was not an option there either.

So if it is not an option what is the next best other option? This pop-centric crap they are trying in Afghanistan? Or what?

[AdamG]

Some soldiers reportedly refused to open fire against civilians in Deraa today, sparking clashes between units. A divided military could prove the undoing of Assad's regime.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...amid-crackdown

[JMA]

... as anticipated (by me anyway) Russia blocked any UNSC condemnation of the Syrian regime.

Push in U.N. for Criticism of Syria Is Rejected

Watch the BRICS nations as they start acting as a "block".

What to do now? More sanctions and this:

UNHRC to hold special Syria session Friday

“The international community has been shocked by the killing of hundreds of civilians in connection with peaceful political protests [in Syria] in the past week,” said US Ambassador to the UNHRC, Eileen Donahoe, on Wednesday.

Watch the voting on this one.

[davidbfpo]

We are aware that one of Gadafy's two active brigades is commanded by a son, so accordint to this is the brigade in Deraa:

Bashar has decided that Deraa is the epicentre of the revolt and so has deployed the military.

Not any military, but the 4th Armoured Division commanded by his brother Maher.

From:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...epression.aspx

So Adam G's previous post about dissent @ Deraa is even more interesting.

From the very limited, private film clips available and from my armchair I always wonder why heavy armour is preferred, not APCs and infantry. Nor am I impressed when the tank commander looses off a few shots from his heavy calibre MG, shots that will hit something.

[AdamG]

If you liked that, you'll love this -

Some 200 members of Syria's ruling Baath party are reported to have resigned over the violent crackdown against pro-democracy demonstrations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13219853
see also
http://www.economist.com/node/186212...21246&fsrc=rss

[Rex Brynen]

We are aware that one of Gadafy's two active brigades is commanded by a son, so accordint to this is the brigade in Deraa:

While Maher has certainly been present at Darʿa and may have assumed command responsibilities (after all, who says no to an Asad?) he isn't the regular commander of the 4th AD, but rather commander of the Presidential Guard.

[Tukhachevskii]

Maybe you want to reassess your position on Syria?

Yep, but only this bit;

Asad knows he has to act carefully (they'll be no repeat of Hama, nor need there be).

As for this...

You misinterpret my statement (seems to happen often and I use misinterpret as opposed to misrepresent).

I will not actually take the time and effort to reply to you with the courtesy I try to show most people I disagree with. But as you seem to have a "beef" with anyone who doesn't follow the JMA party line (whatever that may be) I can't see the point.

Out

[Entropy]

I would (if I were the US president ) give the Russians until the end of the month to reign in the Syrian regime or will offer the people of Syria protection from the excesses of the regime.

That begs the question - you'd give them to the end of the month...or what? What are you willing to trade or threaten to gain Russian compliance? What will you do when Russia gives you the middle finger and tells you to mind your own business?

[Dayuhan]

That begs the question - you'd give them to the end of the month...or what? What are you willing to trade or threaten to gain Russian compliance? What will you do when Russia gives you the middle finger and tells you to mind your own business?

I think the "or" was meant to be this:

or will offer the people of Syria protection from the excesses of the regime.

Why that would worry the Russians is another question altogether: I'd guess they'd be perfectly happy to see the US taking on yet another messy intervention in the Middle East. I think they'd say "go for it", while laughing their backsides off.

[JMA]

Why that would worry the Russians is another question altogether: I'd guess they'd be perfectly happy to see the US taking on yet another messy intervention in the Middle East. I think they'd say "go for it", while laughing their backsides off.

Not sure the Russians would. If the US and the EU handled Syria even slightly better than they did with Libya they could position themselves on the side of the people and their liberation from oppression and make sure Russia/China etc are seen to be on the side of the regime.

But sadly we are likely to see a cautious, hesitant, dithering approach again where leadership from the US will again be found wanting.

[JMA]

That begs the question - you'd give them to the end of the month...or what? What are you willing to trade or threaten to gain Russian compliance? What will you do when Russia gives you the middle finger and tells you to mind your own business?

If the Russians are unable to reign in the regime by month end then would (under that hypothetical that I was empowered to do so)

...offer the people of Syria protection from the excesses of the regime.

Ask the people of Syria what help they need and then take it from there...

Yes, I know the US has a poor record of dealing with Russia so other than giving them the first chance of exerting their influence one would bypass them on this and in so doing realise that solving this matter through the UNSC will not be possible (through Russian veto).

The options are complex for the US given their current foreign policy weakness so one would probably be wise to look towards the EU to start the ball rolling.

[Entropy]

JMA,

Why would Russia take such a threat seriously? What makes you think the Syrian people want the "help" of the USA? Also, what makes you think Russia has the required influence with Syria? For Syria this is a matter of regime survival and "pressure" from outside governments isn't going to have much effect.

This is all academic of course since the American people won't support yet another major military intervention in yet another middle-east country.

[JMA]

JMA,

Why would Russia take such a threat seriously? What makes you think the Syrian people want the "help" of the USA? Also, what makes you think Russia has the required influence with Syria? For Syria this is a matter of regime survival and "pressure" from outside governments isn't going to have much effect.

All one needs to do is put Russia on notice that the reaction to the internal situation in Syria (from the US (maybe) and the EU (more likely)) will be more than mere verbal condemnation and ineffective sanctions. Its not a threat (the US would never have the balls to threaten Russia) it just offered them a chance to act on the side of right. Neither Russia nor China could support action against regimes that crackdown on internal dissidents and commit human rights abuse against their citizens because that would rebound on them through their own actions.

You really need to be more astute in your observations. The young Syrians who take to the streets unarmed in protest seem to willingly and without fear risk death or wounding from the regime's trigger happy military forces. Day after day they take to the streets and offer themselves as targets. There is a very powerful revolution taking place in Syria right now (and please don't you ask what momentum is building in this regard as well).

But yes the US will dither as the spin doctors try to figure out how to choose a course of action where the US will appear to be all things to all men (which is impossible as they should have learned from Libya). This hesitancy, vacillation and indecision is to be expected against the background of the recent pronouncements of Russia - Russia warns against interference in Syria

This is all academic of course since the American people won't support yet another major military intervention in yet another middle-east country.

Ah.. another who speaks with authority on behalf of all the people of the US.

Iraq and Afghanistan, it is true, have been badly managed and should have either never happened or been wrapped up long ago. You can't be talking about Libya as it is hardly "yet another major military intervention" is it. But in the case of Libya had Obama gone for a quick effective intervention that would have been all over (from the US military involvement point of view) by now and on the list of concerns. One of the costs of indecisive command and leadership is that these poorly implemented interventions will tend to stack up in the "incomplete" column and have a negative impact on current operational possibilities.

Now the potential spinoff benefit of this whole Syrian revolution is that it may spread to Iran. That would be the great prize and the US and the EU should help that process along as much as they can.

[Dayuhan]

All one needs to do is put Russia on notice that the reaction to the internal situation in Syria (from the US (maybe) and the EU (more likely)) will be more than mere verbal condemnation and ineffective sanctions.

But it won't be... certainly not from the EU (more likely?? Surely you jest...) and not likely from the US either. The Russians know it and so do we, so what's the point of blustering about it?

Its not a threat (the US would never have the balls to threaten Russia) it just offered them a chance to act on the side of right.

Why would the US want to threaten Russia, especially over a matter that doesn't even involve Russia? What would be the point? Or are we supposed to threaten people on a regular basis, on general principles, just for practice, or because we can?

But yes the US will dither as the spin doctors try to figure out how to choose a course of action where the US will appear to be all things to all men (which is impossible as they should have learned from Libya). This hesitancy, vacillation and indecision is to be expected against the background of the recent pronouncements of Russia - Russia warns against interference in Syria

I can't see how Russia, or anything Russia said, would have anything to do with it at all. Even were the bear as meek as a sea slug, the US and EU would still want nothing to do with this one.

There are few things easier than advocating reckless, high-risk intervention from the safety of a remote armchair like yours or mine. After all, our opinions have no consequences, and neither do our decisions. Those who make policy haven't that luxury.

Ah.. another who speaks with authority on behalf of all the people of the US.

It's a reasonable conclusion, and I think anyone who's been paying attention to US public opinion would agree with it.

But in the case of Libya had Obama gone for a quick effective intervention that would have been all over (from the US military involvement point of view) by now and on the list of concerns. One of the costs of indecisive command and leadership is that these poorly implemented interventions will tend to stack up in the "incomplete" column and have a negative impact on current operational possibilities.

Again, your opinion.

Quick effective intervention can remove a government. Removing a government doesn't mean anything is "all over". Unfortunately, whoever removes the government is generally held responsible for managing what comes after. Removing a government isn't where the problems end, it's where they start... and while it's all very well to speak of leaving things for the locals to sort out their way, weren't you recently advocating intervention in the Ivory Coast precisely to prevent the locals from sorting things out their way?

Now the potential spinoff benefit of this whole Syrian revolution is that it may spread to Iran. That would be the great prize and the US and the EU should help that process along as much as they can.

Meaning that if we get sucked into Syria we may have the opportunity to get sucked into Iran as well? What a wonderful pleasure that would be... I can think of few better arguments for staying out.

[Entropy]

What Dayuhan said.

[JMA]

But it won't be... certainly not from the EU (more likely?? Surely you jest...) and not likely from the US either. The Russians know it and so do we, so what's the point of blustering about it?

Why would the US want to threaten Russia, especially over a matter that doesn't even involve Russia? What would be the point? Or are we supposed to threaten people on a regular basis, on general principles, just for practice, or because we can?

I can't see how Russia, or anything Russia said, would have anything to do with it at all. Even were the bear as meek as a sea slug, the US and EU would still want nothing to do with this one.

There are few things easier than advocating reckless, high-risk intervention from the safety of a remote armchair like yours or mine. After all, our opinions have no consequences, and neither do our decisions. Those who make policy haven't that luxury.

It's a reasonable conclusion, and I think anyone who's been paying attention to US public opinion would agree with it.

Again, your opinion.

Quick effective intervention can remove a government. Removing a government doesn't mean anything is "all over". Unfortunately, whoever removes the government is generally held responsible for managing what comes after. Removing a government isn't where the problems end, it's where they start... and while it's all very well to speak of leaving things for the locals to sort out their way, weren't you recently advocating intervention in the Ivory Coast precisely to prevent the locals from sorting things out their way?

Meaning that if we get sucked into Syria we may have the opportunity to get sucked into Iran as well? What a wonderful pleasure that would be... I can think of few better arguments for staying out.

Lets sit back and watch how things develop shall we?

But I tend to agree with you that it is probably better for the US to surrender now and be done with it all. What a pathetic end to a once superpower.