What To Do About Syria

[Stavros]

This is a tricky situation- the use of chemical weapons is unconscionable, but a few cruise missile strikes are the equivalent of the West patting themselves on the back. They won't destroy stockpiles without running the risk of contamination or surviving ordinance falling into the hands of a number of different groups. The strikes could also force the Syrian military to decentralize their remaining munitions, making them even more difficult to control or keep tabs on.

If a U.S. led coalition does attack, it also runs the risk of encouraging militants from both Sunni and Shia enclaves in Lebanon and Iraq becoming even more deeply involved, raising the possibility of a regional sectarian conflict. Iraq itself has seen the bloodiest summer since the surge in 2006. Then there is always the threat of a retaliatory strike on Israel, which Assad has mentioned several times over the past few months as a possible doomsday scenario is his regime is removed from power by western forces.

So, its a very difficult situation and the only way to prevent the use of chemical weapons would be to insert some sort of larger presence in Syria or wage a protracted air campaign. Then again, there is always the chance of mission creep and putting troops on the ground, something Obama is highly allergic to after over a decade of war, which has helped tank the US economy. No one, not even the hawks, want another counter insurgency operation. Finding some way to bring both sides to the peace table seems the best option, although Assad has clearly become even more of a hardliner, especially after the victories around Homs- he thinks hes winning. For their part, the rebels are still too fragmented. So, the real question seems to be: how much influence can the US and Europe exert and if so, will it run the risk of starting a regional conflict which will be even more tragic than the current plight of Syrians? Some people are already comparing the conflict to the situation in the Balkans prior to World War I, when a variety of super powers were involved in that region.- Russia, Iran vs. the US and UK. Things could escalate and go a number of directions very quickly.

All good points, because the Syrians have observed what happened in Iraq since 1990 (at least) and have amended their deployments to create a strategic complexity which Iraq did not have in the relatively simple case of the Kuwait invasion. The WMD that followed a decade later was a figleaf for regime change -years later Blair said of Iraq 'I took the view that we needed to remake the Middle East' -nothing to say about protecting the UK from attack. Syria has been a difficult place for the US historically, and it's intelligence on the country has been poor and dependent on Israel. But is it not the case that when Obama said there was a 'Red Line' that Syria should not cross, it was not just an invitation to do just that, but implied that anything else was in some way acceptable? As if using conventional weapons was not such a big deal! A big mistake and either personal or the result of poor advice.
Obama had political ambitions yet, like Blair before him, never took the time to understand the Middle East when learning his trade, and appears a novice even now, after five years in office. His advisors are not much more savvy either, I believe Kerry was a Skull & Bones man when in Yale, not a great pedigree to have. It doesn't make sense militarily.

The diplomatic impasse has been created by the failure of the rebels to bring down the government, and the lack of any major defections from within the regime. On this basis, the Russians and the Chinese see nothing to negotiate about, and see the 'West' attempting to remove a pro-Iranian, pro-Russian government as being more important than what follows. Chechnya effectively collapsed under the weight of Russian arms (a conflict in which the USA had no input) yet eventually the Russians found someone to take office and give the place a semblance of normality. Hafiz el-Asad saw off the Brotherhood and other rebels in the 1980s, perhaps they think Bashar can emulate his father and that the broadly speaking moderate rebels will prefer a deal with Asad than a pact of losers with the Jihadists--?
On the other hand, something will have to be done about the refugees, many of whom are too scared to go home, if they still have one.

[Stavros]

Arab papers here report that Syria has moved political prisoners into main army bases in Damascus in expectation of US strikes. That was a tactic that Saddam adopted during bombing strikes on Baghdad.

Incoherence all the way down the ine as i see Stavros pointed out.

But one is forced to ask - without seeming callous - what form of regime in Syria is a greater threat to global order. The vile Assad government or aJihadist dominated regime with a deep seated and violent animus towards the West?

I think you underestimate the impact of the Jihadist groups ability to alienate the people they need most to survive -they appear like the Bolsheviks in 1917 and many of these groups like the Palestinian guerillas of the 1960s/70s have been modelled on the Bolsheviks and the Cuban cells -but the Bolsheviks though small and not well known were able to take advantage of a vacuum of power in Russia and use their people-friendly slogans, superior organisation and ruthless violence to win converts. The Syrian govt is not in disarray, and I think it is conceivable that if there is no significant change on the ground, the majority of rebel groups as time wears them down, may seek an accommodation with the regime rather than allow the minority Jihadist to hijack the state -many -most?- are not Syrian anyway. It could be like the 'awakening' in Iraq when the Sunna elites who had benefited from Saddam's largesse and then lost it, rebelled against the al-Qaeda militants whose agenda was even worse than the Shi'a in power.

There is now a suggestion that Qatar is having second thoughts on the long-term impact of its support for the Syrian rebels -because it hasn't worked, and many Arabs across the region may come to see Qatar as an interfering nuisance waving money around as its badge of honour so to speak. It played a major role in Libya, but as expected the smooth transition there has been beset by revenge attacks, and the political incoherence that follows years of dictatorship. Not sure how secure this makes the FIFA World Cup in Qatar, if that ever goes ahead.

[up_for_it]

All good points, because the Syrians have observed what happened in Iraq since 1990 (at least) and have amended their deployments to create a strategic complexity which Iraq did not have in the relatively simple case of the Kuwait invasion. The WMD that followed a decade later was a figleaf for regime change -years later Blair said of Iraq 'I took the view that we needed to remake the Middle East' -nothing to say about protecting the UK from attack. Syria has been a difficult place for the US historically, and it's intelligence on the country has been poor and dependent on Israel. But is it not the case that when Obama said there was a 'Red Line' that Syria should not cross, it was not just an invitation to do just that, but implied that anything else was in some way acceptable? As if using conventional weapons was not such a big deal! A big mistake and either personal or the result of poor advice.
Obama had political ambitions yet, like Blair before him, never took the time to understand the Middle East when learning his trade, and appears a novice even now, after five years in office. His advisors are not much more savvy either, I believe Kerry was a Skull & Bones man when in Yale, not a great pedigree to have. It doesn't make sense militarily.

The diplomatic impasse has been created by the failure of the rebels to bring down the government, and the lack of any major defections from within the regime. On this basis, the Russians and the Chinese see nothing to negotiate about, and see the 'West' attempting to remove a pro-Iranian, pro-Russian government as being more important than what follows. Chechnya effectively collapsed under the weight of Russian arms (a conflict in which the USA had no input) yet eventually the Russians found someone to take office and give the place a semblance of normality. Hafiz el-Asad saw off the Brotherhood and other rebels in the 1980s, perhaps they think Bashar can emulate his father and that the broadly speaking moderate rebels will prefer a deal with Asad than a pact of losers with the Jihadists--?
On the other hand, something will have to be done about the refugees, many of whom are too scared to go home, if they still have one.

Thanks for your response Stavros. Many of your comments point towards two important factors undergirding the entire mess:

1. Assad and his backers are in fact winning, in the sense they've regained lost territory in the north, areas which will allow them to reorganize and form a solid logistical base for further operations in northern Syria by securing the coastal Alawite enclaves and Hezbollah's supply lines into Lebanon. The conflict appears to be settling into a static phase, and although the western media hasn't made much of Homs, its a key location which will enable Assad to push northwards in a methodical and secure manner.

2. I think anyone keeping up with Syria can sense western governments not just the US but also the British and Germans in particular, are more concerned with making sure support would reach non-fundamentalist groups, hence the lack of concrete assistance due to a lack of intelligence on the various disparate organizations. This is the lesson of Iraq: a brutal dictator may be less problematic than what will come after a regime change, especially in a country that was already socialized to political violence well before the current conflict began ( think Syria's own internal repression operations and also the influx of Iraqi civilians in the early 2000s) Unfortunately, the conflict may just be building up steam compared to what might come after it- years of sectarian conflict which could well metastasize into a regional religious war. Not removing Assad may actually stabilize the situation if diplomacy can work. Right now, for the West, it is less about Syrian civilians and more about making sure Iraq, Turkey, and Israel don't get pulled in.

[Ben]

Obama, of course, has sought Congressional authorization to use force in Syria. But we should all remember Libya...

House Rejects Authorization of Libya Intervention:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/natio...ntion-20110624

[Ben]

Bill Richardson: We Need A "Coalition Of The Willing" For Attack On Syria:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._on_syria.html

[Ben]

U.S. Depleted Uranium as Malicious as Syrian Chemical Weapons:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-...b_3812888.html

[Queens Guy]

Will the folks at the Norwegian Nobel Committee want their Peace Prize back?

[Stavros]

One wonders not only why Obama was nominated, but why he agreed to accept it. The prize originally was to be awarded to to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"-you could at least argue that Henry Kissinger negotiated a peace with Vietnam at a congress in Paris even if his critics don't think he deserved it. In 1948 the committee decided not to make the award, so it is not as if they have to make a choice. But why has this Nobel Prize fetish become so important to some people?

[Ben]

The New Crossfire: Where Both Sides Support War With Syria:

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/08/28/...ar-with-syria/

[surf4490]

Simple answer nothing