Syria Superthread [merged]

[Edward Campbell]

A repost: the Pakistani Taliban join the war against Assad, and add to the ranks of the radical Islamist rebel factions. 

Which is precisely why Prime Minister Harper urged great caution in dealing with these slugs. We may not like Assad, but we're going to like the next lot even less.

The corect course of action is isolation ~ by all means sell arms, if that's your game, to all sides, but don't put even the tiniest scintilla of hope that any outcome is going to be better than the status quo ante.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And now the New York Times reports that "After leading a determined push with France to remove legal hindrances to arming Syria’s rebels, Britain is apparently signaling a more cautious approach, even as British newspaper reports say Prime Minister David Cameron has retreated from the idea altogether."

The FSA ~ whatever the FSA might be ~ still has a loud cheering section in Washington and France, of course, will sell any weapon to any thug with cash. But, maybe, cooler heads will prevail and we will just let Arab kill Arab using whatever tools are at hand. The outcome doesn't really matter.

 

[sean m]

Here is an article about clashes between Kurds and Islamists, the Kurds seemed to have managed to push the islamists out of an area. The article mentions the dispute between the groups over cultural values, Secularism vs Islam.  If the conflict in Syria goes in favour of the Islamists and they begin targeting the Kurds and other minorities much more violently, does anyone here believe that the West should intervene, if the Assad regime falls? Would anyone here be possibly more willing to have the West arm the Kurds who are against Assad, since perhaps they share similar values as us. Here is the article


http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/76750/World/Region/Kurds-expel-jihadists-from-flashpoint-Syrian-town-.aspx

Here is a video of fighting between Kurds and Islamists

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP8MUH8oEE

 

[a_majoor]

The problem is there are so many overlapping but non contiguous lines in the current middle east.

Arming the Kurds would certainly be opposed by the Turks, and I imagine the Iranians might not be too happy about that either. The Turks are still nominally our allies and share some of the Western values, while the Iranians are currently our enemies, and so are the Jihadis (who hate the Iranians as Apostates and Persians). Assad is certainly not our friend, and neither are the Russians (who support him). Many of the Jihadis are supported by Saudi and Gulf State money, yet they are notionally our friends. We don't like the Muslim Brotherhoods, but their members have gone to Syria to fight Assad...

This is one of those contests where you really want everyone to lose...

 

[Edward Campbell]

The problem is there are so many overlapping but non contiguous lines in the current middle east.

Arming the Kurds would certainly be opposed by the Turks, and I imagine the Iranians might not be too happy about that either. The Turks are still nominally our allies and share some of the Western values, while the Iranians are currently our enemies, and so are the Jihadis (who hate the Iranians as Apostates and Persians). Assad is certainly not our friend, and neither are the Russians (who support him). Many of the Jihadis are supported by Saudi and Gulf State money, yet they are notionally our friends. We don't like the Muslim Brotherhoods, but their members have gone to Syria to fight Assad...

This is one of those contests where you really want everyone to lose...

:goodpost:

I think Thucydides has summed up the situation very well.

 

[a_majoor]

Very long article in Wired Magazine on the DIY armourers who supply the various Syrian opposition groups with weapons and bombs. The level of inginuity and effort are quite high, although the tactical application isn't to the same standard (perhaps thankfully. About 2/3 of the way into the article is an account of one unit using these devices; they fail to follow through with an attack once they make a breach with a large IED and improvised grenades, but take a lunch break instead...)

Follow the link: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/diy-arms-syria/

 

[CougarKing]

It seems the interventionists continue to have an influence on Obama. After all, he did involve the US in the Libyan conflict, which was similar in some respects. As others have strongly emphasized on this thread, if he listens to the interventionists and leads the US into this mess, it will be a BIG mistake...

Top US military officer says Obama administration considering use of military force in Syria
The Canadian Press

link

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. military officer told a Senate panel Thursday that the Obama administration is deliberating whether to use military power in Syria, where a civil war entering its third year has killed almost 93,000 people.

Amid an increasing clamour among President Bashir Assad's opposition for active U.S. involvement, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said during congressional testimony that he has provided President Barack Obama with options for the use of force. But he declined to detail those choices, saying "it would be inappropriate for me to try to influence the decision with me rendering an opinion in public about what kind of force we should use."

The remarks by the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman came after Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican, asked him which approach in Syria would carry a greater risk: continued limited action on the part of Washington or more significant actions such as the establishment of a no-fly zone and arming the rebel forces with the weapons they need to stem the advance of President Bashar Assad's forces.

"Senator, I am in favour of building a moderate opposition and supporting it," Dempsey said. "The question whether to support it with direct kinetic strikes ... is a decision for our elected officials, not for the senior military leader of the nation."

The use of kinetic strikes, a military term that typically refers to missiles and bombs, "is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government," Dempsey said.

Asked about Dempsey's comments, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama always asks his military commanders for options "and that is true in an arena like Syria." He said the president is constantly reviewing U.S. options in Syria

"There are a whole range of options that are out there," Navy Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said of the planning for military action in Syria. "We are ready to act if we're called on to act."

McCain later told a group of reporters he plans to block Dempsey's confirmation, saying he was dissatisfied with the answers to the questions Dempsey was asked about Syria.

I want to see him answer the question," McCain said. "Hello!"

Seeking a compromise, Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat and the committee chairman, asked Dempsey to provide the panel by early next week with an unclassified list of options and the general's assessment of the pros and cons of each. Levin made clear he is not asking Dempsey to share his personal opinion on whether or not to use force in Syria. Dempsey agreed to provide the list.

Levin said he hoped the assessment from Dempsey would give McCain "greater reassurance."

"I don't know if it will, but that was the way in which I think a legitimate issue needs to be addressed," Levin told reporters

Dempsey acknowledged in response to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, that Assad's forces have the upper hand in Syria.

"Currently the tide seems to have shifted in his favour," the general said.

The Armed Services Committee is considering Dempsey's and Winnefeld's nominations for a second term. The Democratic-led committee is all but certain to approve the reappointments.

Leading senators including Levin and McCain, have been pressing Obama to take a more forceful approach to defeat Assad's forces. While the administration has authorized lethal aid to rebel forces battling Assad's troops, it isn't trying to enforce a no-fly zone in which Syria's combat aircraft would be barred from flying, or otherwise intervene militarily to halt the war.

To avoid getting drawn deeper into Syria's civil war, administration officials have pointed to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 as an example of what can go wrong when America's military becomes involved in Middle East conflicts.

"We've rushed to war in this region in the past. We're not going to do it here," Obama's chief of staff, Denis McDonough, said Sunday on CBS television's "Face the Nation."

During his exchange with McCain, Dempsey said "situations can be made worse by the introduction of military force" without first understanding how the country would continue to govern and ensuring that government institutions don't fail.

Dempsey's first term as chairman has been a turbulent one with the military drawing down from lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, he has had to grapple with billions of dollars in budget cuts that have threatened military readiness, the epidemic of sexual assaults in the ranks, the crisis in Syria, and most recently unrest in Egypt.

__

Associated Press writers Robert Burns and Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It seems the interventionists continue to have an influence on Obama. After all, he did involve the US in the Libyan conflict, which was similar in some respects. As others have strongly emphasized on this thread, if he listens to the interventionists and leads the US into this mess, it will be a BIG mistake...

 

[a_majoor]

But when a Republican President intervenes it's a bad thing....

Correct answer: It's ALWAYS a bad thing unless you are willing to go all the way to WWII levels of involvement

 

[sean m]

Here is an interesting article from Foreign Affairs Magazine. It discusses the importance of the Syrian military officrr corps and why the officers have mostly remained faithful to the Assads. It doesnt seem, from what the experts are saying,  that the Syrian military officers will be changing allegiances any time soon.

http://m.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139585/zoltan-barany/general-failure-in-syria

 

[CougarKing]

I wasn't aware there was a even internal rift among the Shiites in Iraq and Iran. It seems this Syria War is not just about conflict that pits different Islamic sects against each other (e.g. Sunni vs. Shiite) but conflict within sects as well (e.g. Shiite Najaf vs Shiite Qom in Iraq). So this Syria conflict will be much like the Thirty Years' War of the 1600s then, as some pointed out.

link

Syria war widens rift between Shi'ite clergy in Iraq, Iran
Reuters

By Suadad al-Salhy

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - The civil war in Syria is widening a rift between top Shi'ite Muslim clergy in Iraq and Iran who have taken opposing stands on whether or not to send followers into combat on President Bashar al-Assad's side.

Competition for leadership of the Shi'ite community has intensified since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 toppled Saddam Hussein, empowering majority Shi'ites through the ballot box and restoring the Iraqi holy city of Najaf to prominence.

In Iran's holy city of Qom, senior Shi'ite clerics, or Marjiiya, have issued fatwas (edicts) enjoining their followers to fight in Syria, where mainly Sunni rebels are fighting to overthrow Assad, whose Alawite sect derives from Shi'ite Islam.

Shi'ite militant leaders fighting in Syria and those in charge of recruitment in Iraq say the number of volunteers has increased significantly since the fatwas were pronounced.

Tehran, Assad's staunchest defender in the region, has drawn on other Shi'ite allies, including Lebanese militia Hezbollah.

Hezbollah's open intervention earlier this year hardened the sectarian tone of a conflict that grew out of a peaceful street uprising against four decades of Assad family rule, and shifted the battlefield tide in the Syrian government's favor.

The Syrian war has polarized Sunnis and Shi'ites across the Middle East - but has also spotlighted divisions within each of Islam's two main denominations, putting Qom and Najaf at odds and complicating intra-Shi'ite relations in Iraq.

In Najaf, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who commands unswerving loyalty from most Iraqi Shi'ites and many more worldwide, has refused to sanction fighting in a war he views as political rather than religious.

Despite Sistani's stance, some of Iraq's most influential Shi'ite political parties and militia, who swear allegiance to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have answered his call to arms and sent their disciples into battle in Syria.

"Those who went to fight in Syria are disobedient," said a senior Shi'ite cleric who runs the office of one of the top four Marjiya in Najaf.

"SHI'ITE CRESCENT"

The split is rooted in a fundamental difference of opinion over the nature and scope of clerical authority.

Najaf Marjiiya see the role of the cleric in public affairs as limited, whereas in Iran, the cleric is the Supreme Leader and holds ultimate spiritual and political authority in the "Velayet e-Faqih" system ("guardianship of the jurist").

"The tension between the two Marjiiya already existed a long time ago, but now it has an impact on the Iraqi position towards the Syria crisis," a senior Shi'ite cleric with links to Marjiiya in Najaf said on condition of anonymity.

"If both Marjiiya had a unified position (toward Syria), we would witness a position of (Iraqi) government support for the Syrian regime".

The Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad says it takes no sides in the civil war, but the flow of Iraqi militiamen across the border into Syria has compromised that official position.

Khamenei and his faithful in Iraq and Iran regard Syria as a important link in a "Shi'ite Crescent" stretching from Tehran to Beirut through Baghdad and Damascus, according to senior clerics and politicians.

Answering a question posted on his website by one of his followers regarding the legitimacy of fighting in Syria, senior Iraq Shi'ite cleric Kadhim al-Haeari, who is based in Iran, described fighting in Syria as a "duty" to defend Islam.

Militants say that around 50 Iraqi Shi'ites fly to Damascus every week to fight, often alongside Assad's troops, or to protect the Sayyida Zeinab shrine on the outskirts of the capital, an especially sacred place for Shi'ites.

"I am following my Marjiiya. My spiritual leader has said fighting in Syria is a legitimate duty. I do not pay attention to what others say," said Ali, a former Mehdi army militant who was packing his bag to travel from Iraq to Syria.

"No one has the right to stop me. I am defending my religion, my Imam's daughter Sayyida Zeinab's shrine."

A high-ranking Shi'ite cleric who runs the office of one of the four top Marjiiya in Najaf said the protection of Shi'ite shrines in Syria was used as a pretext by Iran to galvanize Shi'ites into action.

"SHI'ITE PROJECT"

In the 10 years since Saddam's fall, Iran's influence in Iraq has grown and it has sought to gain a foothold in Najaf in particular.

Senior Iranian clerics have opened offices in Najaf, as well as non-governmental organizations, charities and cultural institutions, most of which are funded directly by Marjiiya in Iran, or the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, local officials said.

The Iranian flag flies over a two-storey building in an upscale neighborhood of Najaf, which houses the "Imam Khomeini Institution", named after the Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

The Imam Khomeini Institution is one of many Iranian entities that have engaged in social activities in Iraq, focusing on young men, helping them get married, and paying regular stipends to widows, orphans and students of religion.

Some institutions also support young clerics and fund free trips for university students to visit Shi'ite shrines in Iran, including a formal visit to Khamenei's office in Tehran, Shi'ite politicians with knowledge of the activities say.

"We have a big project in Iraq aimed at spreading the principles of Velayet e-Faqih and the young are our target," a high-ranking Shi'ite leader who works under Khamenei's auspices said on condition of anonymity.

"We are not looking to establish an Islamic State in Iraq, but at least we want to create revolutionary entities that would be ready to fight to save the Shi'ite project".

(Editing by Isabel Coles and Mark Heinrich)

 

[Old Sweat]

According to this story from Fox News reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has outlined five possible options for US intervention in Syria.

Dempsey outlines Syria options, including deployment of ‘thousands’ of ground forces

Published July 23, 2013
FoxNews.com

The nation's top military officer has laid out five options the Obama administration is considering on Syria, including "limited" strikes against the Assad regime and an all-out campaign to secure chemical weapons that includes "thousands" of U.S. forces.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the options in a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich. The letter was sent as, on the other side of the Hill, the House Intelligence Committee signed off on the administration's call to arm the Syria opposition -- though the committee, which held that up for weeks, continued to voice reservations.

Dempsey's letter, released Monday, went far beyond arming the opposition in outlining potential options. He sent the letter after taking heat at last week's confirmation hearing from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who pressed Dempsey for his advice on Syria while suggesting the administration had not done enough -- McCain threatened to place a hold on Dempsey's nomination until he got answers.

In the letter, Dempsey gave five options on Syria beyond providing humanitarian assistance, which the U.S. already is doing.

At the least invasive end, he said, is the option of training, advising and assisting the rebels. The next level up would be conducting limited strikes on "high-value regime" military targets.

The three other options are increasingly costly and risky.

They include:

A no-fly zone, which according to Dempsey could cost up to a billion dollars per month and would include shooting down regime aircraft and conducting strikes on their airfields.

The establishment of "buffer zones," which would be "specific geographic areas" where the opposition would safely organize and train. This would require thousands of U.S. ground forces, Dempsey said, "even if positioned outside Syria," to protect these zones.

A campaign to secure chemical weapons. This would entail destroying portions of Syria's stockpile, interdicting shipments and seizing other components. At minimum, Dempsey said, this would include a no-fly zone and thousands of special operations and other forces to secure critical sites.

Dempsey stressed that these are just options that have been prepared, and that some options "may not be feasible in time or cost."

On another front, the House Intelligence Committee gave tentative approval toward arming the opposition.

Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said that despite "very strong concerns about the strength of the administration's plans in Syria and its chances for success" there was "consensus that we could move forward with what the administration's plans and intentions are in Syria consistent with committee reservations."

The Intelligence Committee had delayed the administration for weeks from fully implementing its Syria policy, including arming the rebels, Fox News has learned.

Fox also confirmed that a majority -- but not all -- of the Committee members signed off on moving forward with the plan.

House Speaker John Boehner, addressing the Syria crisis on Tuesday, said helping "the right set of rebels is in our nation's best interest."

It was not immediately clear how the new policy would be funded although money could be "reprogrammed" from other accounts, including possibly the defense spending bill.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/22/house-intelligence-committee-signs-off-with-reservations-on-administration-call/?cmpid=prn_aol&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D347796#ixzz2Zthpswkh

 

[Jed]

Looks like more than one throw away COA in this list of options. A real political minefield.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Option six, not mentioned by the Chairman, is to sit back and relax and let (human) "nature" take her own, bloody, course.

I vote for option six.

 

[OldSolduer]

Option six, not mentioned by the Chairman, is to sit back and relax and let (human) "nature" take her own, bloody, course.

I vote for option six.

Agreed. They are approaching the tar baby situation.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Option six, not mentioned by the Chairman, is to sit back and relax and let (human) "nature" take her own, bloody, course.

I vote for option six.

Foreign Policy appears to agree. Today's "breaking" report is headlined: "Every Military Option in Syria Sucks." That's a clear, concise and accurate summary of the situation facing US policy makers.

 

[observor 69]

The US's recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Egypt have resulted in a professional military and political analysis of all options in Syria.
According to the talking heads on Tuesdays' PBS Newshour option six is very attractive. 

 

[tomahawk6]

Option six actually would mean an Assad/Hizbollah/Iran victory.What would that mean for Turkey and Israel ? Victory might mean more Assad which would probably be bad for Israel.Not so bad for Turkey. Homs is about to fall to the Assad/Hizbollah forces.Then they will push on to Aleppo.My gut reaction is to let the FSA and Assad's forces fight each other until both sides are exhausted.Syria has become a meat grinder for Hizbollah which is a good thing IMO.It may already be too late for the FSA but I would suggest that the US and its allies provide weapons and ammunition to the FSA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23488855

 

[CougarKing]

Wonder what secondary arrangements the Kurd leader in Turkey negotiated for his release - other than stopping Kurd aggression in Turkey?

Speaking of the Kurds, they may prove pivotal in the current course of the Syrian Civil War, as stated below, though this PYD Kurdish rebel group in Syria will probably end up as merely a vehicle for Turkey's influence on the conflict...

Kurds could help shift course of war in Syria
Reuters

Yahoo News link


By Ayla Jean Yackley

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - The head of Turkey's main Kurdish party has welcomed contacts between the Ankara government and Syria's Kurds, saying it could step up pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and help change the course of the civil war,

Turkish intelligence officers met in Istanbul last week with Saleh Muslim, head of Syria's Democratic Union Party (PYD), a Kurdish group whose militias have been fighting for control of parts of Syria's north near the Turkish border.

The meeting followed Muslim's declaration that Kurdish groups would set up an independent council to run Kurdish areas of Syria until the war ends. Ankara fears that kind of autonomy could rekindle separatist sentiment among its own, much larger Kurdish population as it seeks to end a 30-year-old insurgency.

"Saleh Muslim's visit to Istanbul is a concrete sign that Turkey is moving towards changing a policy that sees Kurds as a menace," Selahattin Demirtas, head of parliament's Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), told Reuters in an interview.

"It won't just affect Turkish-Kurdish relations but also the course of events in Syria by creating pressure on the regime," he said.

"Kurds can be effective in Syria, and we need to increase support for them. Western countries, including the United States, should establish proper ties with Syria's Kurds."

Turkey is one of the strongest backers of the rebels seeking to topple Assad in a war that has claimed more than 100,000 lives since March, 2011.

Syria's ethnic Kurdish minority has been alternately battling Assad's forces and the Islamist-dominated rebels for control of parts of the north.

Turkey wants assurances from the PYD that it will not threaten border security or seek an autonomous region in Syria through violence, and that it will maintain a stance of firm opposition to Assad, officials said.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Friday warned the group against any "wrong and dangerous" moves that could hurt Turkish security.

PEACE AT HOME

Demirtas is a main player in Turkey's efforts to resolve a conflict on its own soil with Kurdish militants in which more than 40,000 people, mostly Kurds, have been killed since 1984.

The 40-year-old party leader has shuttled to the island prison that has held Abdullah Ocalan, the head of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), since his conviction for treason in 1999 and has delivered the rebel leader's messages to his armed followers in northern Iraq.

The PKK - considered a terrorist group by Turkey, the United States and European Union - announced a ceasefire in March to encourage talks with Ocalan, seen as the best chance yet to end one of the world's longest-running guerrilla wars.

"He is like a good chess player. He makes his move by predicting the next eight or 10 moves in advance," said Demirtas, who met Ocalan for the first time on Imrali this year.

Running red worry beads through his hands, he described Ocalan as a master of Middle Eastern politics and connoisseur of literature, philosophy, art and history.

In recent weeks the rebels have warned that Erdogan's government must show greater commitment if the ceasefire is to hold, and address Kurdish grievances by expanding political and cultural rights.

The BDP expects legislative action by October, when parliament reconvenes after a summer recess, on demands for the release of thousands of party members in detention on terrorism charges, stronger local rule and Kurdish-language education.

Turkey banned the use of Kurdish, a distinct language related to Farsi, outright until 1991 and has only recently allowed it to be used in radio and television broadcasts.

Authorities strictly control access to Ocalan, limiting him to infrequent meetings with family, his lawyers and BDP members involved in the peace process. Supporters would like to see him moved out of his small cell to meet with civic groups and the media, as well as for a hospital to open on Imrali.

Conditions for the 64-year-old Ocalan must be improved or his frail health could imperil the peace process, Demirtas warned, saying eventually he should be freed.

"If there is going to be peace in Turkey, if the enmity is to end, if we're going to have forgiveness, then this should happen," he said. "When this peace process is fulfilled and things normalize, no one is going to keep him there."

 

[a_majoor]

At this point the Americans probably won't be coming, so the regional players will be in for the kill, or at least seeking to neutralize the influence of the "others".

The Turks, as pointed out, can manipulate some of the Kurds (and as an interesting aside, they might choose to energize the Kurds living in NW Iran as a better strategic option to achieve their goals), and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States will probably start providing more money and aid to the Salafist/Jihadi groups in order to fight the Shiites and blunt Iran's bid for regional hegemony.

Israel and Jordan might not like it, but since it solves the short term problem of Iranian reach for regional dominance, they will facilitate the Saudis, or at least look the other way (and hope enough Salafis and Jihadists are killed in the meatgrinder that they won't be dealing with a radical Islamic Syria on their borders). Plan "B" might be to help the Turks, since a neo Ottoman Empire is probably more acceptable than a Radical Sunni Syria for the Israelis and Jordanians.