Syrian civil war

[Walsingham]

Assad wants to win. Gas happens, therefore Assad made it happen. That, in a nutshell, is the west's argument*. It just happens to ignore that if Assad wants to win the one thing he must avoid is having the US become the rebel's air force. At least Israel/ Qatar/ Saudi/ Lizardmen did it arguments are logically consistent, so far as they go. Doing something obviously counter productive and illogical though?

 

 

Hold on, Zor. _I'm_ not arguing that Assad did it either. If you recall I put the case for it being jifs. I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to act decisively one way or another.

 

But that doesn't mean the killings themselves didn't happen, or that we should just let it slide.

 

Reflecting on your point I believe that a more coherent argument would be to assert that known stocks of chemical weapons should be removed from the equation by force. To prevent them being used by EITHER side.

 

I would also suggest that a less ludicrous 'red line' be constructed, that includes an objective detection system to trigger the response.

[Zoraptor]

Ideally neither side would have chemical weapons, certainly.

 

The problem with forcing it though is that it's fundamentally counter productive, because it while it looks good on paper to destroy the weaponry it isn't a realistic prospect. If the rebels have chemical weapons you've little prospect of hitting theirs (both because they're more likely to be ad hoc and, frankly, the west is unlikely to want to admit the rebels have them for political reasons), and if you try and take out the government ones you risk exactly the situation you most don't want- them being split up into lots of small dumps which will not be as effectively protected and will be more prone to falling into the hands of extremists, or being used as a matter of course by some local commander for that matter- or you might hit a dump with a bomb and end up Bhopaling anyone downwind. None of those prospects are very attractive.

[Walsingham]

Good points. I'm working under the assumption that the technical issues of neutralising these weapons have been dealt with by US planners/tech.

[kgambit]

Ideally neither side would have chemical weapons, certainly.

 

The problem with forcing it though is that it's fundamentally counter productive, because it while it looks good on paper to destroy the weaponry it isn't a realistic prospect. If the rebels have chemical weapons you've little prospect of hitting theirs (both because they're more likely to be ad hoc and, frankly, the west is unlikely to want to admit the rebels have them for political reasons), and if you try and take out the government ones you risk exactly the situation you most don't want- them being split up into lots of small dumps which will not be as effectively protected and will be more prone to falling into the hands of extremists, or being used as a matter of course by some local commander for that matter- or you might hit a dump with a bomb and end up Bhopaling anyone downwind. None of those prospects are very attractive.

 

As Wals said, good points.  I don't believe the US will attempt a strike on the depots holding the chemicals themselves for all the reasons you mentioned.   I read that the US estimated that 75,000 troops would be needed to secure the chemical depots and Obama has said "no boots on the ground".

 

I think any strikes would be focused (at the start) on the Syrian Air force, artillery and rocket delivery systems and the static S-200 (SA-5) air defense systems.   Possibly some C&C and radar. 

 

All that talk is premature anyway, since the last estimates I saw predicted that Obama would not gain Congressional approval.  He has a slight lead in the Senate, but the House vote is decidedly opposed to action.  If he loses that vote, then it falls into the hands of the UN and I expect Russia to block any action.   I think China stays neutral to avoid damage to any trade agreements on either side.  They might condemn action verbally but they will probably abstain in a vote.

 

Then it becomes a matter of whether Obama decides to act anyway.  He has stated before that he believes he can do so without Congressional approval.    Unlike some of the other leaders, he doesn't have another term to worry about.

[Hildegard]

On Wednesday Al-Nusrah backed by US and its allies attacked a small Christian town of Maaloula with heavy machine guns, suicide bombers and mortar fire targeting people and ancient Churches on UNESCO list of world heritage: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/as-us-strike-looms-al-qaida-linked-rebels-attack-regime-held-christian-village/2013/09/05/0d0bede6-15fa-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_story.html

 

Also another point why this Al-Nusrah enjoys wide support from Turkey is because they're doing the dirty work for the Turks by butchering Kurdish minority in northern Syria thus fleeing to Northern Iraq seeking refuge:

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/28/the_civil_war_within_syria_s_civil_war_kurdish_fighters

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/world/middleeast/syrian-kurds-find-more-than-a-refuge-in-iraqi-kurdistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-kurdish-muslim-conflict-110/

 

Don't have a doubt those sick bastards in Saudi Arabia and Turkey are glad how their allies are doing in Syria and most of all don't have a doubt that US doesn't find it difficult to turn a blind eye what is being done by forces they directly and indirectly support. But Mr. Kerry says Al Qaeda elements in Syria are little and none so I have to believe him just like when he says Assad is the one that used Chemical weapons. 

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Ideally neither side would have chemical weapons, certainly.

 

The problem with forcing it though is that it's fundamentally counter productive, because it while it looks good on paper to destroy the weaponry it isn't a realistic prospect. If the rebels have chemical weapons you've little prospect of hitting theirs (both because they're more likely to be ad hoc and, frankly, the west is unlikely to want to admit the rebels have them for political reasons), and if you try and take out the government ones you risk exactly the situation you most don't want- them being split up into lots of small dumps which will not be as effectively protected and will be more prone to falling into the hands of extremists, or being used as a matter of course by some local commander for that matter- or you might hit a dump with a bomb and end up Bhopaling anyone downwind. None of those prospects are very attractive.

 

That all comes with the generous presumption that chemical weapons are really what this conflict is about and not an impossible goal used to create legitimacy for further involvement. 

Edited September 6, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[BruceVC]

 

Ideally neither side would have chemical weapons, certainly.

 

The problem with forcing it though is that it's fundamentally counter productive, because it while it looks good on paper to destroy the weaponry it isn't a realistic prospect. If the rebels have chemical weapons you've little prospect of hitting theirs (both because they're more likely to be ad hoc and, frankly, the west is unlikely to want to admit the rebels have them for political reasons), and if you try and take out the government ones you risk exactly the situation you most don't want- them being split up into lots of small dumps which will not be as effectively protected and will be more prone to falling into the hands of extremists, or being used as a matter of course by some local commander for that matter- or you might hit a dump with a bomb and end up Bhopaling anyone downwind. None of those prospects are very attractive.

 

That all comes with the generous presumption that chemical weapons are really what this conflict is about and not an impossible goal used to create legitimacy for further involvement. 

 

 

Its no presumption, the West has had 2 and half years to intervene and its been avoiding it. The only reason the USA and its allies are now being forced to act is due to the usage of Chemical weapon, this is irrefutable my friend...irrefutable

[Hildegard]

Its no presumption, the West has had 2 and half years to intervene and its been avoiding it. The only reason the USA and its allies are now being forced to act is due to the usage of Chemical weapon, this is irrefutable my friend...irrefutable

 

 

What reason did the 'west' had to attack a sovereign country for 2 and a half years? Nobody is forcing the US to attack anyone, they're doing it at their own free will. And it's irrefutable only in the minds of you and your alike. 

[Walsingham]

I think your insistence that an invasion is actually intended and on the way is immensely illustrative.

[BruceVC]

 

Its no presumption, the West has had 2 and half years to intervene and its been avoiding it. The only reason the USA and its allies are now being forced to act is due to the usage of Chemical weapon, this is irrefutable my friend...irrefutable

 

 

What reason did the 'west' had to attack a sovereign country for 2 and a half years? Nobody is forcing the US to attack anyone, they're doing it at their own free will. And it's irrefutable only in the minds of you and your alike. 

 

 

Now now Hildegard, you need to be on the right side of history. Don't be a reed in the path of the hurricane that is the Western onslaught against Assad.

 

No one forced Assad to use Chemical weapons, he has been pushing the boundaries for a while now and he needs to face the consequences of the military decisions he made against his own people   

[Malcador]

And we don't know if he even did use chemical weapons.

[Hildegard]

Hilde: Let's be quite clear. I don't say that US foreign policy is sensible or omniscient. I'm not saying that they wouldn't quite like to have a go at Iran, because they're holding a knife to an oil artery.

 

All I'm currently saying is three things, and I think I share them with Obama:

 

1. Globally the international community can't just wish things to happen and cross its fingers

2. One of the things it is currently wishing for and not doing anything about is a total moratorium on the use of chemical weapons on civilians

3. Striking Assad, when Assad is on the ascendant does not automatically result in an extremist win. Indeed the hope is that if weakened he will try to sit down with t moderates in earnest and instigate some reforms in order to unite against the fundis.

 

The only point where we differ is wanting both proof and a god damned plan of action. Post-Iraq I feel the public or at least Parliament/Congress are justifiably skeptical on both points.

 

One thing really puzzles me, everybody is saying Chemical weapons are the red flag, we said so countless times (Obama). So I guess it's ok for Obama and the West if various sides in Syria keep killing people with led (by the tens of thousands so far) but if someone (Assad) uses Chemical weapons and kills several hundred that's it, we're going to war. Wave the red flag, don't matter the evidence, oh wait the ever sincere and transparent truth loving Israelis are gonna get it for us, launch the planes. From that standpoint this isn't at all about Syrian civilians suffering, dying and becoming refuges. This is all about using the current conflict in Syria for the US and its allies in the region to get rid of an adversary. Obama, UK or France don't give a **** if by doing so 100, or 200 thousand Syrians die, pure statistics and nothing else. 

 

In my opinion striking Assad will not end in negotiation between him and the opposition. Although Assad's forces have the upper hand in the conflict his situation isn't perfect. There were many forces among his ranks that deserted and with constant airstrikes that is going to reach further levels, easily those to a critical point of breaking. As I stated before, the intention of this Western intervention isn't about saving human lives but about taking down Assad. The opposition on the other side is homogeneous when it comes whom are they fighting against, we'll see later on in a post Assad Syria how they'll get along. Especially with that Islamic state of Iraq within Syria or what's it called, I could easily imagine a few of those popping out, having a certain copy of Lebanon in Syria. Or maybe those Al-Nusra leaders are gonna turn around and we'll have great new stories like this one: http://i.imgur.com/OceJj8Z.jpg

Edited September 6, 2013 by Hildegard

[Drowsy Emperor]

To certain people, that is obviously irrelevant.

 

Btw the whole "2 years to intervene" explanation sounds very convenient, but its common knowledge that the propaganda machine needs to start at least a year or more before an intervention in order to drum up public support and enthusiasm for war. The intention to destroy Assad was plain from the moment the uprising began, way before chemical weapons were even a topic. The tone of the news reports, where Assad is always portrayed in a negative light (despite not having done anything at that point) made it very clear from the outset what the intentions of the US are.

[BruceVC]

To certain people, that is obviously irrelevant.

 

Btw the whole "2 years to intervene" explanation sounds very convenient, but its common knowledge that the propaganda machine needs to start at least a year or more before an intervention in order to drum up public support and enthusiasm for war. The intention to destroy Assad was plain from the moment the uprising began, way before chemical weapons were even a topic. The tone of the news reports, where Assad is always portrayed in a negative light (despite not having done anything at that point) made it very clear from the outset what the intentions of the US are.

 

Everything you are saying makes sense expect for the fact the majority of the USA and UK public are against the war and have never been behind intervention in Syria,  sorry to be logical Drowsy but you know how I detest conspiracy theories..and yes how else would you expect Assad to be portrayed but in a negative light. Anyone who is prepared to turn the might of his army and police against his own people who want political change doesn't deserve to stay in power, its as simple as that

[Hurlshort]

We should also keep in mind that there are very different levels of military intervention.  I seriously doubt that the US will commit to more than a small amount of troops on the ground, even if they do go forward.

[obyknven]

Russia will help Syria if it comes under attack

 

 

 

St Petersburg: President Vladimir Putin says Russia will continue helping Syria even if it comes under attack. Putin, speaking at Friday's briefing after the Group of 20 summit, answered with a firm "we will" when asked if Russia will keep providing assistance to Syria if it's attacked.

 

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/russia-will-help-syria-if-it-comes-under-attack-putin_874752.html

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

To certain people, that is obviously irrelevant.

 

Btw the whole "2 years to intervene" explanation sounds very convenient, but its common knowledge that the propaganda machine needs to start at least a year or more before an intervention in order to drum up public support and enthusiasm for war. The intention to destroy Assad was plain from the moment the uprising began, way before chemical weapons were even a topic. The tone of the news reports, where Assad is always portrayed in a negative light (despite not having done anything at that point) made it very clear from the outset what the intentions of the US are.

 

Everything you are saying makes sense expect for the fact the majority of the USA and UK public are against the war and have never been behind intervention in Syria,  sorry to be logical Drowsy but you know how I detest conspiracy theories..and yes how else would you expect Assad to be portrayed but in a negative light. Anyone who is prepared to turn the might of his army and police against his own people who want political change doesn't deserve to stay in power, its as simple as that

 

 

Yes, even after prolonged propaganda the pubic is still against war. Whether the US goes through with it regardless will be a good test of its own democracy.

 

You fail to mention that in an uprising, the rebels do not necessarily represent the people or majority any more than the government does. The government exists to uphold law and order and its duty is to use its army and police against those who would destabilize it. Otherwise, what's the point of the government - it might as well not exist. The point at which the government crosses that line into terrorizing its own citizens is very hard to prove, and has not been proven so far.

 

Considering that Assad still controls the army, which is, even in the most corrupt of countries, the most patriotic of institutions, and considering that that army surely has more than a few Sunni muslims a pretty good case could be made that the majority of Syrians, of all religions, still have faith in the government. The Christians (10% of Syrian population) are terrified of the possibility of Sunni rule, and by and large support Assad. 

 

If it was a true uprising and if Assad was a true "butcher" that indiscriminately murders everyone who is against him - it would be much easier for the opposition to find common ground and overthrow him. And they wouldn't have to rely on imported jihadists to do it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The US isn't a democracy, it is a Republic. Very big difference.

 

Anways, I'm against the proposed intervention simply because it will not do any good. Swapping Asswad for Jihadists isn't an improvement.

[Gfted1]

Eh, I don't really care if Assad is a good guy or not. Im all for bringing our mighty pimp hand to bear if it gains my country resources, but otherwise we should let them settle it themselves.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hmm, perhaps we should bomb everything to oblivion and annex the Middle East.

[Gfted1]

Nah, weve got enough of our own oil now that we'll be an exporter soon. If not for stupidly propping up Israel we could just sit back and watch the eventual fireworks.

[Zoraptor]

Everything you are saying makes sense expect for the fact the majority of the USA and UK public are against the war and have never been behind intervention in Syria,

Public opinion won't matter if it's decided that the strategic situation demands intervention. It is of course a lot better to have the public backing, and Obama would almost certainly have severe backlash if he ignored a no vote (which seems pretty likely in the HoR if the straw poll is to be believed) and in terms of public opinion even if he got it. But, if the decision is made that Hezbollah and Iranian involvement requires some sort of intervention then that is what they will do no matter what people think, in the hope that they'll be able to control the aftermath and get the 'nice' people into power. Saudi, Qatar and Israel won't agree on much, but having an Iranian crescent stretching from Lebanon to the Pakistan border is one thing none of them, and by extension the US, want. Then again, I don't think that the planned intervention is about chemical weapon usage directly, that's just a palatable topping, and that the belief from both Cameron and Obama is that when it really came down to it more people and representatives would rally around the flag instead of maintaining an uncaring or antipathetic stance towards the whole thing.

[Rostere]

 

 

Everyday I see more and more evidence that the single wisest foreign policy decision the US ever made was the Monroe Doctrine. It's been all downhill since we abandoned it.

I disagree. WWII allowed us to gain the military and technological advances that put us at the top of the food chain.

 

WWII was a whole different story. We were attacked. Prior to that there was not much interest in involving ourselves in what was seen as a purely European affair. But then again nobody really knew Hitler was busy exterminating an entire race either. That might have shifted sentiment if it was known.

 

WWI was a good example of a bad intervention. I could easily make the case they US involvement did nothing for us and may have actually made things worse. Korea and the Gulf War were also good interventions because we were defending an ally from an invasion. Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, now this were all expensive mistakes from which nothing good came on our part.

 

I think the Gulf War was a good intervention, and I do believe American involvement in WW2 had a positive effect on the world. I'm unsure about WW1 - I'm sure I could find points both for and against - but I'm leaning towards saying it was a good intervention.

 

You should check up how South Korea really was during the Korean war. It was a brutal, repressive dictatorship (and to be honest, at the time many people would probably have preferred to have lived in North Korea, global politics aside, very ironic of you compare it to the current situation) on a patch of land with no resources at all to talk about. The intervention in itself was also an atrocity in terms of the use of overwhelming force against civilians (compare Dresden, et.c.). Military leaders on the losing sides of wars have been convicted in international courts for less. The South Korean government might have been "allies" of the US on paper, but really Guard Dog, you have got to have one ounce of moral fiber in your body. You don't "ally" with dictatorships of that kind. You talk about "rights" and the American constitution but you're willing to pay a fortune to save a brutal dictatorship overseas which ****s in the face of those very same "rights" of it's own people? It's pointless to aid a foreign dictatorship when the only outcome is a different flavor of totalitarianism. By the same logic of yours, the US should also have aided Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union.

 

You can argue Libya was expensive (although it's a fart in the ocean compared to Iraq or Afghanistan) but the intervention was in my mind perfectly justified, and close to perfectly executed. Libya is today ruled by a democratic government and the future of many Libyan citizens looks much brighter. Remember the protests which took place in Benghazi after terrorists had attacked the American diplomats? I have not seen that amount of sympathy expressed for the USA in any Arab country. You have got to admit that intervention was a service to the world and the "right" thing to do, the only way you can argue against it is that the US shouldn't have paid for so much of it.

 

 

 

There are also sincere democratic movements.

 

While certainly true sincere democratic movements tend to get marginalised in wartime, even in the west most of the anti democratic measures that have been taken recently have been dressed up in the rhetoric of war. I'd go back to the Spanish Civil War comparison, where there were plenty of sincere democrats, but they got marginalised by the more extreme groups (Falange/ Fascists; Communists) who had better troops, better training, better support and had the 'moral clarity' to push their vision and ideology against nominal friends as well as enemies. And when it comes to moral clarity the typical hard jihadi makes Generalissimo Francisco Franco look like an all inclusive chardonnay socialist.

 

I'd love to continue the comparison with the Spanish civil war because it helps to prove my point perfectly well! In fact, it's the best historical example I could think of to support my stance.

 

Let's see who received aid, from whom, and how things went down:

• The Fascists received by far the most foreign military aid - from (Fascist) Italy, and from (Fascist (National Socialist)) Germany. A significant amount of people on this side were various monarchists and the like, who received no direct support from the big Fascist nations and were consequently marginalized within the faction.
• The Communists received far less, but still somewhat significant aid from the Soviet Union. Compared to the aid sent by Italy and Germany, this aid had many prerequisites - the Soviets wanted to be sure they were supporting people of the exactly same ideology as themselves and were very hesitant to support more centre-left aligned factions, evident in the sizable NKVD staff in Spain (for comparison: Italy sent an army of 100000 men, the Soviets sent 500 men but had over 1000 military ideological advisers present.
• The rightful democratic government of Spain - nominally Socialist - received close to no direct foreign aid from democratic nations. Eventually the upper leadership were left almost entirely powerless as independent, splintered groups of different left-wing persuasions fought against the Nationalists on their own fronts.

Now WHY were the democratic movements marginalized again? Of course because they had ZERO international support. That, and well, that only. The performance of various factions correlates very well with their support from other countries here.

 

Imagine if the US, UK and France had sent the democratic, legitimate government of Spain the same aid the Fascists offered their allies? That would have meant (approximately) an army of over 300000 men and loads of ammunition and equipment. It would have turned the war easily.

 

No, the Spanish civil war was lost only because democratic governments worldwide failed to come to the assistance of the democratic movements in Spain. And it's easy to argue the exact same thing is happening in Syria: democratic governments fail to rally to the side of our ideological allies because we think they are too "mixed up" with Islamists (the parallel between Democratic Socialists/Communists and FSA/Jihadis is almost perfect here). Meanwhile the jihadis get full support from countries of their ideology, marginalizing the other rebels.

[Zoraptor]

That's a pretty convincing argument, but up to a point.

 

The other crucial aspect of why the communists ended up so dominant on the Republican side (at least up until near the very end) was that there were plenty of people willing to flock to, and die for, the banner of Communism, much as there are plenty of people willing to flock to, and die for, the banner of Islam. Getting people to flock to the banners of social democracy and moderation on the other hand is... more difficult, even if you do arm them better. It also doesn't address the 'will to power' aspect, the Communists in Spain were willing to liquidate anarchists and non Stalinist communist groups even when they were fighting the Nationalists as well. In neither the Syrians nor the SCW was there any realistic prospect of the rebels/ Republicans deciding to fight their most powerful single component group no matter what you give them, unless they really have to (ie it becomes an existential issue) because when it comes right down to it Christians, Shia or Kurds simply aren't as important as winning the war. As uncomfortable as moderate Syrian rebels or the moderate Republicans may (have) be(en) with aspects of their nominal allies they are still fighting, and effectively fighting, those they regard as their true enemies.

 

If the Republicans had won the SCW there may also have been a second war against the communists. At least the Nationalists, unpleasant as they were, didn't immediately decide to have a Falange vs Carlist free for all once they'd won, and there's little prospect of that happening if Assad wins either- but if the rebels win then a fight for the spoils seems almost inevitable. So far from helping, arming the rebels is likely to prolong the conflict even further- and even if they 'win'.

[Walsingham]

I agree with Zor, particularly about the what he calls the 'will to power' and I would call the charismatic component.

 

Ultimately we are talking about fighting wars, and the science of war dictates certain virtues triumph over others. Of these I would highlight professionalism and skill, and operational mass. Both interlink with military discipline.

 

The communists learned in their own civil war that almost nothing could be accomplished without enforced discipline. The anarchists and democrats felt it should take a back seat , or what was the point of fighting fascism.

 

Discipline means the commies - and in our case the jifs - enforce boring training, and enforce its application. Discipline means that cohesion and coherence is maintained, and above all, that multiple units can be deployed in operations to significant strategic effect. Discipline means that when morale fluctuates it can be propped (temporarily) with threats.

 

This is what makes the jifs really dangerous, and why the most important thing we could be giving the moderates isn't bullets, but something to do with discipline, beginning with B.