• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Syria Superthread [merged]

Western intervention or lack of it is one of the primary causes for the rise of extremism. Just like we've seen in Afghanistan (intervene), Iran (no intervene), Lebanon (no intervene), Iraq (intervene), Bosnia (no intervene). It seems like the "West" intervenes or does not intervene at the wrong time, the wrong place. In my opinion Islamic democratic parties will provide as much alternative to the current secular parties in the ME as much as did the Christian democratic parties do after WW-II in Europe, though acknowledging the differences between the two.
 
I'm sorry, Tiamo. I do not follow your logic wrt Intervene / not intervene of the west. Could you please give this another try?

 
Tiamo said:
Western intervention or lack of it is one of the primary causes for the rise of extremism. Just like we've seen in Afghanistan (intervene), Iran (no intervene), Lebanon (no intervene), Iraq (intervene), Bosnia (no intervene). It seems like the "West" intervenes or does not intervene at the wrong time, the wrong place.

You've essentially just argued that no matter what the West does, extremists will still rise up.

That's like saying if it's sunny or cloudy tomorrow, it will be dark tomorrow night.
 
cupper said:
You've essentially just argued that no matter what the West does, extremists will still rise up.

That's like saying if it's sunny or cloudy tomorrow, it will be dark tomorrow night.


And, in a perverse way, he's right.

We, the commentariat especially, make the fundamental error of believing (wishing?) that our interests are coincident with the interests of peoples elsewhere.

It maybe be, almost certainly is "true" that all people are alike, we all have the same basic needs (Maslow and all that) and desires. But we are framed - penned in, if you like - by our cultures which exert an enormous influence on our collective "needs." We, in the US led West, take out liberal, secular, capitalist, democratic culture for granted and we assume that our cultural values are applicable in a deeply conservative theocracy; that's a false assumption, in my opinion.

Thus whatever we do, or fail to do, in the world will be wrong in someone's eyes - usually in the eyes of someone with different interests and perspectives.
 
Thank you Mr. Campbell. I can understand that logic.
 
Jed said:
Thank you Mr. Campbell. I can understand that logic.


Don't get me wrong; I doubt Tiamo applied any logic; it is just that in, as I said, a perverse way, he happens to be right ~ rather like a broken clock that just happens to be right twice a day.
 
Jed said:
I'm sorry, Tiamo. I do not follow your logic wrt Intervene / not intervene of the west. Could you please give this another try?

The way E.R. Campbell had explained it is more in line. However, I'd add that the West does not comprehend how the East thinks. In particular, I find the West at odds with Latin America, and ME. The culture is different, how people perceive things are different in these regions are different.

From my opinion only, I find the West unable to think beyond a decade when intervening or not intervening in a region. Perhaps, I may need to be reminded of a successful intervention or non-intervention by the West in recent history. Only thing came to mind was Georgia.

In other news:

- Syrian opposition takes the seat of the Syrian Gov't at the Arab League, a symbolic gesture
- The Arab League commit to arming the Syrian rebels (allowing member states to supply arms...pending...)
- For the first time we hear a figure about the size of US assistance to the opposition. Moaz Al-Khatib (who supposedly resigned, but then not resigned from heading the Syrian opposition) declared in his speech to the Arab League that the US had provided $365 Mil. in humanitarian funding.
- Further, from the Arab League speech appears like a request was made by the Syrian opposition to the US requesting deployment Patriot missiles 100 km inside Syrian territory to protect the northern part of the country that has been liberated and allowing for the establishment of transitional government. That request was rejected hours after.
 
US Congress preparing bills to support the Syrian opposition and possibly establishing safe zones:

Source: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/03/28/congress-takes-action-on-syria-when-president-obama-wont

First, Senators Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Bob Casey, D-Pa., introduced the Syria Democratic Transition Act of 2013, which would provide vetted opposition groups with non-lethal military equipment, training on human rights and international laws of war, and also impose harsher sanctions on the Central Bank of Syria. Rubio has also publicly endorsed providing ammunition to members of the armed opposition.

[See a collection of political cartoons on Syria.]

Second, Senators Carl Levin, D-Mich., the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and John McCain, R-Ariz., expressed their support for military action in order to degrade the Assad regime's airpower and to create a safe zone inside Syria's northern border in a letter to President Obama. Toward that end, Congressmen Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., introduced the Free Syria Act of 2013, which would support the deployment of anti-aircraft systems to prevent the Assad regime's air force from attacking free Syrians.

A safe zone would provide shelter for refugees; shield civilians from attacks by regime forces; allow opposition forces to organize; and help the United States and its allies better identify, equip, and train moderate groups. As McCain recently remarked,

.....
.....
 
A bit of overheated rhetoric, but some of the speculation seems well grounded. A "Northern" Syria under control by the Islamists and a "Southern" Syria under control of more moderate elements as a buffer is a possible configuration (and may be favoured by various powers for the reasons mentioned). I think the authour has not fully contemplated the various moving parts; the Christians and Awaites may make a stand in and around Aleppo, while the Kurds may use their ability to tap into "Iraqi Kurdistan" to create a de facto state of their own associated with their Kurdish counterparts in Iraq.

The fate of Ambassador Stevens is still murky; this scenario is perhaps as plausible as any other, but since the Administration is stonewalling any inquiries it is difficult to tell:

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/04/03/flash-threat-from-rebel-syria-becomes-clear-and-what-really-happened-in-the-benghazi-murders/?singlepage=true

Flash! Threat from Rebel Syria Becomes Clear and What Really Happened in the Benghazi Murders

April 3rd, 2013 - 9:40 pm
     
While far too late, the Obama administration may be adopting a sensible policy on Syria. The strategy, however, is unlikely to succeed. Oh, and there is also a very important clue—I think the key to the puzzle—about what really happened in Benghazi.

Let’s begin with Syria. As U.S. officials became increasingly worried about the visible Islamist domination of the Syrian opposition—which their own policies had helped promote—they have realized the horrible situation of creating still another radical Islamist regime. (Note: This column has been warning of this very point for years.)

So the response is to try to do two things. The first is to train, with Jordanian cooperation, a more moderate force of Free Syrian Army (FSA) units.  The idea is to help the non-Islamists compete more effectively with the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist, and especially al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra group) affiliated units.

The second is supposedly to create a buffer zone along Syria’s borders with Jordan and perhaps later Israel and even Iraq in order to avoid the conflict spilling over—i.e., cross-border jihad terror attacks—to those countries.

According to the Washington Post:

“The last thing anyone wants to see is al-Qaeda gaining a foothold in southern Syria next to Israel. That is a doomsday scenario,” said a U.S. diplomat in Jordan who was not authorized to speak publicly on the subject.”

Someone has also figured out that it isn’t a great idea to have a border with Iraq controlled by Syrian Sunni Muslim terrorist Islamists allied with the Sunni terrorists in Iraq who killed so many Americans.

Well, might someone not have thought about that a year or two ago? Because, while nothing could have been more obvious there was no step taken to avoid this situation happening.

I should point out an important distinction. The problem is not merely al-Qaeda gaining a foothold but also other Salafists or the Muslim Brotherhood doing so. That, however, is not how the Obama administration thinks. For it, al-Qaeda is evil; the other Salafists somewhat bad; and the Muslim Brotherhood good.

What are the other problems here? As so often happens with Western-formulated clever ideas to deal with the Middle East, there are lots of them.

–The United States has stood aside or even helped arm the Islamists through Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. So now the Islamist forces are far stronger than the non-Islamists. That cannot be reversed at this point.

–Might this be laying the basis for a second Syrian civil war in which the Islamists band together against the FSA? In other words, here is this buffer zone that is backed by the West (imperialism!) to “protect” Israel (the Zionists!), Jordan (traitorous Muslims!), and Iraq (Shia heretics!)

–The training is limited and the FSA is badly divided among different commanders, defected Syrian army officers, and local warlords. The Brotherhood militia is united and disciplined. The result: worse than Afghanistan because the Islamists would have both the government and the stronger military forces.

-A situation is being set up in which a future Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria can blackmail the United States. Either it will force Washington to accept whatever it does (including potential massacres) by threatening to unleash Salafist forces on its borders or it will actually create confrontations.

–Why isn’t the United States working full-time to stop the arms flows to the Islamists by pressuring the Saudis and Qataris (perhaps the point of Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip but hardly effective) and to rein in Turkey’s enthusiasm for a Syrian Islamist regime?

Speaking of Turkey, now we see the reason for the attempted Israel-Turkey rapprochement, because on top of everything else there will be a Kurdish-ruled zone not run by moderates but by the Syrian affiliate of the radical PKK, which is at war with Turkey.

–These proposed buffer zones would not receive Western air support or international forces. –Israel has the experience of maintaining a buffer zone in southern Lebanon for years by supporting a militia group. It succeeded for a long time by sending in Israeli troops covertly and taking casualties. In the end, rightly or wrongly, the effort was given up. Now Hizballah—the equivalent though not the friend of the Syrian Salafists—is sitting on the border and already one war has been fought. It should be noted that Israel has by far the most defensible border with Syria.

Another question, however, is whether the buffer zone idea is real because it might camouflage something else. Suppose the United States wants to do something else entirely. This could mean to create a moderate, secularist force that might win a second Syrian civil war in which the rebels fought each other for power. Alternatively, since northern Syria is now dominated by radical Islamists perhaps the U.S. policymakers hope that the southern part of the country could be a non-Islamist enclave. Control over that region might strengthen the hand of the non-Islamists in negotiating the new order in Syria or as a base for waging a second civil war.

So this is the likely fruit of the Syrian civil war, though that conflict is far from over. The old regime is still alive. What U.S. policy has helped to do is to create a big new threat to Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. It’s also a threat to Lebanon, but since the Syrian Islamists will target the Iran-backed Hizballah there, Washington doesn’t mind.

What does this have to do with Benghazi? Find out on the next page.

Read this paragraph from the Washington Post:

Obama administration officials have expressed repeated concern that some of about 20,000 of the weapons, called MANPADS, have made their way from the arsenals of former Libyan dictator Moammar (sic) Gaddafi to Syria.

This weapons system might be the most technologically impressive arms ever to fall into the hands of terrorists. Once Libya’s regime fell (another U.S. foreign policy production), these weapons were grabbed by the Libyan rebels and sold to the Saudis and Qataris, who supplied them, respectively, to the Syrian Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to reliable sources, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi trying to get those MANPADS back and was negotiating with radical militias toward that goal. Stevens was doing something good—trying to take weapons out of the hands of terrorists—and not running weapons to terrorists.

Yet that doesn’t mitigate the mess unleashed by the administration’s policy. At any rate, Stevens and these efforts failed. The money was too good for the Libyan insurgents to pass up, not to mention helping fellow Islamists and anti-Americans. And now thousands of advanced, easily launched anti-aircraft systems are in the hands of anti-Jordanian, anti-Iraqi, anti-Israeli, and possibly anti-Turkish terrorists.

And just imagine the very real possibility of commercial passenger planes being shot at, or even shot down, by terrorists armed with a weapon they obtained because of U.S. government ineptitude or even involvement.
 
Thucydides said:
A "Northern" Syria under control by the Islamists and a "Southern" Syria under control of more moderate elements as a buffer is a possible configuration (and may be favoured by various powers for the reasons mentioned). I think the authour has not fully contemplated the various moving parts; the Christians and Awaites may make a stand in and around Aleppo, while the Kurds may use their ability to tap into "Iraqi Kurdistan" to create a de facto state of their own associated with their Kurdish counterparts in Iraq.

Wouldn't an islamist controlled north create some issues for the Turks?

I can more likely see an islamist south with support from elements in Lebanon, and a secular moderate north with support from Turkey. And the Kurds left hanging in the wind like they usually do.
 
cupper said:
It would appear that the Desert Kingdom is exporting it's troublemakers to Syria to keep them from making trouble at home.

With Official Wink And Nod, Young Saudis Join Syria's Rebels

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/13/174156172/with-official-wink-and-nod-young-saudis-join-syrias-rebels

I don't think it's the Saudi government under the present aging king exporting the "troublemakers;" rather it's wealthy Saudis--the one's who have the money/clout, hate the west, hate the king and can't wait for him to die and hold extreme Wahabi religious views.  I would agree however that the kingdom should be doing more to prevent citizens from radicalizing.  The youth here have nothing to do--much unemployment which is part of the problem.
Only my two cents.
 
Cupper, I'm sure the Turks woud be much more pleased with the configuration that you have laid out, but  (big but) the Western powers are starting to wake up to what has been happening and can influence things on the ground better from Jordan, Lebanaon and (very quietly) Israel, which makes a moderate "south more likely oin the short term.

If we really want to speculate, I would suggest the next phase would be the Salafists and Islamic radicals having it out with the moderates, while trying to hold off the Turks. The Turks may end up having some sort of de facto truce with the Kurds, in order to focus on the Islamic radicas while not having distractions inside the Turkish state (there may be subtle and not so subtle pressures for Kurds in Turkey to join their compatriots in Syria, Iraq and Iran).

The remaining minorities will have been backed into a small enclave on the coast (centered on Aleppo) and will be a locus of fighting as well (the Islamic radicals will be in a multi dimensional battle against all they see as heretic and apostate), with this as the focus of Iranian, and perhaps Russian support. Lebanon will also be undergoing a political realignment (how violent this is depends on many factors) as Hezbollah is cut off from major logistical and financial support from Iran and Syria.

With luck, the Islamic radicals will be overextended and crushed, but Syria as a State will have ceased to exist, and the fallout of the disintigration could include a Christian mini state along the coast, a de facto Kurdistan centered on northern Iraq and a region that has returned to tribal governance in the center. This should also burn up a lot of the logistical, financial and human support of the Islamic radicals, and exhaust the supporting States as well.

YMMV
 
No matter how things play out, should make my upcoming trip to Turkey a touch more interesting. Won't be near the Syrian border regions, but could make for interesting dinner conversation.
 
I think the way things are going plays a big part in the PPK making peace with Turkey, why fight for that when there is parts of Syria and Northern Iraq to win as a Greater Kurdistan and that would require peaceful trade with Turkey. Anytime someone shoves the "Palestinian issue" into my face, I respond with "Free the Kurds first"!
 
Colin P said:
Anytime someone shoves the "Palestinian issue" into my face, I respond with "Free the Kurds first"!

Good reply. Tell me about it. In a number of my grad. school classes, I had several foreign classmates from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Egypt and guess what their favourite topic was???  ::)
 
S.M.A. said:
Good reply. Tell me about it. In a number of my grad. school classes, I had several foreign classmates from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Egypt and guess what their favourite topic was???  ::) My reply would have been "Free the Uighurs first!"


I would appreciate your thoughts, in our China Superthread, on what "freedom" might mean for the Uighurs, for Xinjiang and for Central Asia.
 
An update: a precursor to Washington preparing for intervention into the Syrian conflict?

Military.com link

200 US Troops to Jordan Could Jump to 20,000

Apr 18, 2013

The Pentagon will send some 200 U.S. soldiers to Jordan to control spillover violence from the Syrian civil war, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the Senate.

But the troops, near Jordan's border with Syria, could be the forerunner of 20,000 or more U.S. troops deployed if the Obama administration decides to intervene in the 2-year-old civil war, senior U.S. officials told the Los Angeles Times.

The 200 or so troops from the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, Texas, will work alongside Jordanian forces to "improve readiness and prepare for a number of scenarios," Hagel told the Senate Armed Services Committee.


Those scenarios could include securing chemical weapons arsenals or to prevent the war from spilling into neighboring countries, he said.

But the Pentagon has drawn up plans to possibly expand the force to 20,000 or more, the officials told the Times.

These forces could include special operations teams to find and secure Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles, U.S. air defense units to protect Jordan's airspace and conventional military units capable of moving into Syria if necessary, the Times said.


Defense Department officials consider the move as preparing the United States for possible direct military involvement in Syria, the Times said.

The Pentagon had no immediate comment on the report.


"Military intervention is always an option, but it should be an option of last resort," Hagel told the committee.

He warned a major deployment could "embroil the U.S. in a significant, lengthy and uncertain military commitment."

Hagel told the panel the new forces will initially help deliver humanitarian supplies and help the Jordanian military cope with the flood of Syrian refugees.

The will replace an ad hoc group of U.S. troops "pulled from various units and places" who have been in Jordan since last year, he said. That group included U.S. Army Special Forces, also known as Green Berets.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who testified with him, if Obama had asked the Pentagon to recommend how to apply "any additional military pressure" on the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad.

"We've had national security staff meetings at which we've been asked to brief the options, but we haven't been asked for a recommendation," Dempsey said.

"We've not been asked," Hagel said. "As I said, I've not been asked by the president."

Hagel is to be in Jordan next week as part of a Middle East trip that will also take him to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, the Pentagon said Wednesday.
 
This update comes from 2 news sources. If the Israeli reports are true, it seems the "intervention" crowd in the Obama administration and other allies may have their justification to do to Assad what they did to Qaddafi/Khadafi/Khadaffy: intervene in an internal conflict against a dictator through "shock and awe".  :o

Washington Post link

Israel says Syria used chemical weapons

TEL AVIV — Two senior Israeli military officials asserted Tuesday that forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have deployed chemical weapons that killed dozens of rebel fighters and civilians, saying their evidence — including photographs of victims foaming at the mouth — made them “very close to 100 percent sure.”

It was the most direct and public claim by Israel that Syria has resorted to chemical weapons, which would mark a steep escalation in a brutal civil war that has stretched on for more than two years. Coming less than a week after France and Britain made similar assertions to the United Nations, the official remarks from a close U.S. ally add to mounting international pressure on the United States — which has repeatedly said it will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons — to intervene in the Syrian conflict.

(...)

From the Saudi Gazette:
MID-EAST
Assad 'using chemical weapons': Israeli army

Last updated: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:38 AM

JERUSALEM — President Bashar Al-Assad is using chemical weapons, most likely sarin, against rebel forces in Syria, a senior Israeli army officer told a conference on Tuesday.

"Assad is using chemical weapons in Syria," said Brigadier General Itai Brun, head of research and analysis in the army's military intelligence division, in remarks quoted on the army's official Twitter feed.

In remarks to the annual INSS security conference in Tel Aviv, Brun listed the physical symptoms suffered by those who had apparently been exposed to chemical agents.

"The pupils are small, the foam coming out of the mouth and other additional signs testify as evidence that use has been made of chemical weapons," he said in remarks broadcast on Israel radio.

"Which chemical weapons? Apparently sarin."


<snipped>
 
The US doesnt have the forces on the ground to intervene in Syria.You definitely wont see Israel invading.The Turks have the ground forces to intervene,I just dont see the will to use the Turkish Army.Could be wrong.Keep an eye on the movement of the 1st Armored Division.If it begins to deploy its armor either by air or sea,then intervention is likely.Follow on forces could come from Germany and the US.

Who takes over in Damascus would be the determining factor for me.Topple Assad and the Muslim Brotherhood probably takes over.This might be a brake on Iranian ambitions.It makes me uncomfortable working with islamo facists.
 
Back
Top