The news from Syria suggests that the balance of power between the regime and its enemies is shifting against Bashar al-Assad and his loyalists. Joseph Holliday of the Institute for the Study of War writes, “The conflict in Syria is approaching a tipping point at which the insurgency will control more territory than the regime.” The rebel forces, he reports, number 40,000 men and they control their “own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside,” while the regime still holds “key urban centers in Damascus, Homs, and Idlib,” which were seized in offensives in February and March. The regime has so few loyal forces at its disposal that it will be hard put to mount a major offensive in the countryside while still retaining control of the urban areas.
That point is buttressed by this report from the field filed by Marine infantryman-turned-reporter Austin Tice, who has been embedded with the rebel forces. He writes:
Weeks of observation of Syrian military operations while traveling with rebel forces leave the impression that the Syrian army is unfamiliar with modern military tactics. It rarely engages rebel forces directly and appears instead to rely on poorly aimed and random fire to intimidate its opponents. Helicopters observed in northern and central portions of the country fly at an altitude that prevents their effective tactical employment.
It is not clear whether this is reflective of incompetence or dual loyalties among the government forces, but whatever the case, it indicates that the Syrian military is not as formidable as it appeared while slaughtering civilians in months past.
The need now is for the West to help the Syrian rebels become better organized. As Holliday writes: “The priority for U.S. policy on Syria should be to encourage the development of opposition structures that could one day establish a monopoly on the use of force. External support must flow into Syria in a way that reinforces the growth of legitimate and stable structures within the Syrian opposition movement.” Achieving that goal will require deeper American involvement with the rebel forces. As I have argued before, this is not a job we can leave to the Saudis or Qataris, lest they wind up backing jihadist groups.
If the rebels are winning, why is there any need for us to do anything? Let Syria be Syria. n nThere's nothing in it for us.
Don't tell Max, Gramps, tell the CIA. Reports are they are already in and on the ground.
Why do something in Syria? Well, assuredly, there will be nothing for us in a future Syria if we do nothing in a rare time of opportunity. The gains of action in Syria may be uncertain (well, somewhat, only as regards Syria itself really–there is great opportunity in Syria to also strike Iran and Russia, even if Syria turns [very inconceivably] even farther against us than it is currently, somehow), but it's hard to picture any "gains" that specifically come from no taking action in Syria. n nWhile you can arguably be against a strong intervention of any kind, it's kind of odd to be for absolutely nothing. I think you lack a) imagination and b) ideological honesty if you honestly can't think of a single thing America can do in Syria to hone its influence in the country and region and improve its strategic outlook at the current moment.
It's in our interest to help them only to the extent that it keeps the country in endless turmoil. Neither an Alawite fascist police state nor an Islamic fascist police state are in our interest. The best possible outcome therefore is no outcome. Anarchy that sucks in Iran to manage their Vietnam scenario is better than either of those other two options.
Is tens of thousands of people dying really even a relatively good option? Maybe there's something behind door number four.
Not all dogs go to heaven I'm afraid.
Well, maybe so, but as Stephen Dedalus kvetched (or was it Leopold Bloom? or maybe Molly?) does history have to be one endless repetition of chad gadya, verse 9? At least let's think about finally getting to verse 10: n nu05d7u05b7u05d3 u05d2u05b7u05bcu05d3u05b0u05d9u05b8u05d0, u05d7u05b7u05d3 u05d2u05b7u05bcu05d3u05b0u05d9u05b8u05d0 nu05d5u05b0u05d0u05b8u05eau05b8u05d0 u05d4u05b7u05e7u05b8u05bcu05d3u05d5u05b9u05e9u05c1 u05d1u05b8u05bcu05e8u05d5u05bcu05dau05b0 u05d4u05d5u05bcu05d0 nu05d5u05b0u05e9u05b8u05c1u05d7u05b7u05d8 u05dcu05b0u05deu05b7u05dcu05b0u05d0u05b7u05dau05b0 u05d4u05b7u05deu05b8u05bcu05d5u05b6u05ea ,u05d3u05b0u05bcu05e9u05b8u05c1u05d7u05b7u05d8 u05dcu05b0u05e9u05c1u05d5u05b9u05d7u05b5u05d8 nu05d3u05b0u05bcu05e9u05b8u05c1u05d7u05b7u05d8 u05dcu05b0u05eau05d5u05b9u05e8u05b8u05d0, u05d3u05b0u05bcu05e9u05b8u05c1u05eau05b8u05d4 u05dcu05b0u05deu05b7u05d9u05b8u05bcu05d0 nu05d3u05b0u05bcu05dbu05b8u05d1u05b8u05d4 u05dcu05b0u05e0u05d5u05bcu05e8u05b8u05d0, u05d3u05b0u05bcu05e9u05b8u05c2u05e8u05b7u05e3 u05dcu05b0u05d7u05d5u05bcu05d8u05b0u05e8u05b8u05d0 nu05d3u05b0u05bcu05d4u05b4u05dbu05b8u05bcu05d4 u05dcu05b0u05dbu05b7u05dcu05b0u05d1u05b8u05bcu05d0 ,u05d3u05b0u05bcu05e0u05b8u05e9u05b7u05c1u05dau05b0 u05dcu05b0u05e9u05c1u05d5u05bcu05e0u05b0u05e8u05b8u05d0, u05d3u05b0u05bcu05d0u05b8u05dbu05b0u05dcu05b8u05d4 u05dcu05b0u05d2u05b7u05bcu05d3u05b0u05d9u05b8u05d0 nu05d3u05b0u05bcu05d6u05b7u05d1u05b4u05bcu05d9u05df u05d0u05b7u05d1u05b8u05bcu05d0 u05d1u05b4u05bcu05eau05b0u05e8u05b5u05d9 u05d6u05d5u05bcu05d6u05b5u05d9 n nNecessity seems to insist we use machine guns to separate the sheep from the goats, but that promise is still out there n n
How do you aid the winning or gaining side in a conflict (the rebels per the piece) that is not of given or structured duration (as is a football game or baseball game), and simultaneously prolong that same conflict? n nEven if we all (including key US policy-makers) thought that this conflict was in our interest, we must take into consideration the moral character of both the US itself, and the actions it has taken (well, those don't exist) and the statements it has issued over the past year and a half or so: well, I'm being rather long-winded. The simple truth is this: the US won't ever help the losing side in this conflict if that losing side is composed of Assad and his loyalists.
Since the conflict itself is conceivably coming to a close (this being ideal or not), what's to be prepared for is its aftermath. The aftermath of a civil war is one old government, or one or multiple new ones. It should be obvious, but you prepare for the eventual existence of something as it is conceived (in thought or any manner) and is forming (in actuality). What we should prepare for is a new Syria, which is, possibly or likely, in the process of being formed. (We should also note, that the US, in not taking any side in the conflict, has no say as to its duration. We should also note, that of the powerful actors that are actually acting as to the duration of the conflict, they are uniformly against extending it. These are, of course, Russia and Iran, who aid Assad materially.)
Wishing it is something or not something is not the same thing as accomplishing anything. Our duty is not to utter unassailable platitudes. And less so, to automatically embrace the enemies of our enemies just because it makes us feel better by ourselves in the short run. Why? Because there are only 3 plausible scenarios here. 1- Assad or another Assad stays in power or gains power and maintains the same fascist police state. 2) A 'committee' of revolutionary rebels temporarily gains power or partial control and then goes on a long bloody reprisal spree against the Alawites, leaving the west to explain why some massacres are bad and others not so bad. 2A) resulting in a power struggle where the winner is indistinguishable from scenario 1. And 3) This – a low level political or sub politcal war with no clear winners or losers or goals and no strategy from anyone. Not quite a civil war not quite civil unrest not quite a separatist movement, not quite random terrorist acts. This is the Africa scenario and not only would Syria more or less continue to exist as it does today, the 'world', just like in Africa is perfectly willing to tolerate it as long as the participants contain it to Syria and the occasional cross border refugee camp atrocities just inside the borders of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Again, Turkey ALREADY does this in Kurdistan and Iraq. There ALREADY are 'refugees' or whatever we call them today, in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. A few more won't make any difference. But with Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and Turkey trying to assert their will and hold on to what power and influence they have, this kind of resource sucking distraction is precisely what is good for US and Israeli interests in the region.
I'll contend what I can and cede what I can't. First, this piece lays out its conceit in the first sentence: "The news from Syria suggests that the balance of power between the regime and its enemies is shifting against Bashar al-Assad and his loyalists." If there is to be endless turmoil in Syria, then it shan't always be between Assad and the current rebel movement. As well, I'll reassert my challenge: how do you aid the winning side in such a conflict as this and simultaneously prolong the conflict? n nContending your "2A" (I intensely doubt that your provided scenarios comprehensively span the plausible), can't we count a bloody regime that is to any degree pro-western, pro-American, or less aligned with Iran as distinguishable from Assad? and who aside from sub-groups in the West has the legitimacy to challenge the West for supporting a bloody group? That wouldn't be Russia or Iran. (Meanwhile, it might be noted, you endorse actively prolonging a bloody conflict…) n nI'm also not inclined to thing that producing and supplying weapons is itself that large of a drain on a nation, but eh.
You're betting everything on a single throw of the dice. A stable autarky in the mold of Mubarek or the Shah of Iran who is nominally westward facing. I think history is on the other side of that now. Not even the 'west' if you consider Obama or the UK or the EU would support that and has said that they are in favor of kicking the geopolitical can down the street for now. For instance Obama has essentially threatened Egypt that if they don't turn the country over to the Muslim Brotherhood then US military aid will dry up. You can't possibly think that at this point the US is going to quietly turn around and stage a coup to keep the military in power. Not in Egypt not in Syria.
if primary loyalties aren't to the state to begin with except under duress and imposition but vertically organized socially along clan, tribal, and sectarian lines–you default to 3 with sustainable levels of violence (more or less) as in Libya, or brutal levels self-sustaining past anarchy (Lebanon late 70'-80's) into genocide (sub-Saharan Africa)–what we may be seeing in Syria is not so much a distraction from Israel of the central indigenous players but the revelation that the deepest psyche of their passions and hatreds just doesn't have all that much to do with the Jews who no longer live there or the state the Jews have next door. The aftermath turns out to be more aftermath, sucking in weak states with permeable ethnic connections but w/geographical or strategic threat against polities that have their stuff together. Russia can always disengage and Turkey stick with cross-border punitive raids. Iran compulsively goes for this crap tho.
I'll give the EUocrats and Obamanites one thing. Concocting all these post colonial states shortly before and shortly after WW2 by simply waving a pointer over a map and squashing dissimilar clans together into a 'country' – a notion which never actually existed in the Arab world – made up of groups which have been ruthlessly murdering each other for over a thousand years, has not succeeded. It hasn't succeeded in Africa with the possible exception of Ghana and Tanzania, it hasn't succeeded in the Maghreb, it hasn't succeeded in the Mizrahi. There is nothing to indicate that stability in the fashion of the first world or the west will pop into existence from nothing, suddenly and randomly. n nAs I said, not all dogs go to heaven. Sometimes the best thing you can do is choose the least horrible suite of atrocities.
I would love for there to be peace in the Middle East – true peace, not just an absence of war. nAs far as I know, the Syrian rebels hate us even more than the Syrian government.
When the Sunnis were in charge of Syria their UN Ambassador was either Achmed Shukari or Jamil Baroodi both of whom made speeches which would make Julius Streicher proud. (Baroodi may have also been the Saudi Ambassador.) n nI HATE to say it, but Obama is doing the right thing here by staying away. Let the Syrians (and all the Arabs) kill each other. When an Arab is killed, an angel gets his wings!
Yeah… right… and if the U.S. gets involve, the rebels will magically become "democratic secularists". How did that work in Libya… and Egypt? Let's not even discuss Iraq or Afghanistan. n nThere is no love of the U.S. in Syria. It is not a U.S. responsibility,
You know Max, the administration is now cobbling together a network of advisors to aid African "governments" resist the invigorated insurgencies of Al Qaeda affiliates back from Libya tanned, rested, ready, and deploying all kinds of new military toys. Sometimes there's a pot of gold at the end of these geopolitical rainbows and sometimes there's a three-wishes horror movie. But who can resist rubbing that magic lamp? And who succeeds in stuffing the genie back in the bottle?
Syrian rebels are the same as the rebels in all the Middle East – so far – Soros' funded Muslim Brotherhood seeking to bring in the 12th Imam and institute Shari'a Law. n nThere is no foot for Good from the USA in that battle. It is a meatgrinder to drain American TX PAYERS MONEY and to kill American soldiers – always dying with their hands politically tied behind their backs by Dim human shields for Islam and Communism.
Rose, all due respect, but "Soros' funded Muslim Brotherhood" is the kind of phrase the use of which brings lunacy into disrepute.
Until Islam is reformed there will be no peace in the Islamic land and or for the Muslims.
The Bible prophecy of the antichrist perfectly matches the islam account of the 12th imam, and the whole package regarding the 12th imam puts his arrival smack on time to be ANY MINUTE, and agrees with Ahmadinejad. It looks more likely that islam will control the 7 Years Tribulation One World Govt of the Book of Revelations, than anyone else. n nIt is not written that islam will reform and start playing nice. n nIn fact, they will get incredibly worse.
Whazzz Boot talkin 'bout? The West is doing fine by quietly being useful and allowing the GCC to work with Turkey taking the center stage. n nMax is a bit long in the tooth to be quite such an exuberant toy soldier. At some point, the man should have learned that all political power does not grow out of the barrel of the biggest gun.
Yes, Turkey is prophetically the Center of the Middle Eastern stage of the 7 Yrs Tribulation according to Daniel. It is the natural origin of the "Pope of islam" that the west gets confused with the "Pope of Rome". n nMajed El Shafie, Rabbi Jonathan Bernis, Walid Shoebat…
Rose, you are no prophet nand there's no grey matter n n….evident in your head nand yet you natter.
" Well, you must be a Soros guy" n nwell, you must be a gal who doesn't need to believe that the world isn't black and white. n ncriticizing your foolish construction must mean to you that I'm some kind of supporter of the MB and /or Soros. n nmaybe when you get your GED it'll occur to you that I can loathe the MB, dislike Soros' politics and still think that you're parroting ugly nonsense (and joining into a select few whose number include a clown such as Glenn Beck should give a decent, even if ignorant, person cause for hesitation).