Civil War in Syria

[ingemann]

What is the risk that further arming the insurgents will just escalate the thing into a full fledged civil war, and a massively high body count. I mean, if you are going to do this, one should parse the odds that it will bring the thing to an end, rather than just make it more sanguinary, no?  And has anyone thought about if Assad is bounced and offed, what the new regime will look like, and what it will do? If one is going to do a switch out, it is generally a good idea to know about not only about the switchor, but also the switchee isn't it?  Maybe they are all just mad dogs and should just be quarantined as it were.

Yes people have thought about, which is the reason few western leaders has called for full intervention. The opposition is disunited and to large degree sectarian. As such it's more or less the recipe for a repeat of post-invasion Iraq.

Another problem is that we have no idea of the degree of support behind Assad. The Kurds who have every reason to hate him has mostly united behind him. That say everything we need to know about the opposition. The Alawites has little choice beside backing him up, and the Christians try to keep their heads low, while also supporting the regime. The Druze aren't entuatistic a bout the opposition either. At last he also have wide support among the Sunni middleclass. a even uglier aspect is that the official demography may be rather wrong, and the real fact on the ground may in fact favour the minority groups more, which can turn any future civil war even uglier. The reason for this is that Syria has seen a large influx of Iraqis, while many are Sunnies, the Christians was significant overrepresented among the refugees. At the same time Alawites may in fact make up 20% of the population instead of the official 10-15%. While this may seem surprising, it make sense as they are relative poor and rural as a group, as such they have a high birthrate. The Kurdish population too may be underestimated, as many disguise themselves as Arabs. All in all a civil war may end up looking like a uglier version of Bosnia. The sides has relative defensible stronghold (Alawites and Christians along the coast, Kurds in the north, Druzes in the south and Sunnies in the east), while there still is many  mixed areas and sectarian and ethnic enclaves. The Sunni middleclass outside the capital live to large extent in Alawite areas (which is a good reason to support Assad).

[ingemann]

Stability isn't necessarily a good thing, North Korea is currently a very stable hellhole. I actually think Libya has gotten better even though it has become less stable.

It may be less stable but the difference between the Kims and Daffy versus Assad, are that Assad never really was phrone to erratic behaviour. We simply have no idea what North Korea will do tomorrow, while we have a good idea what Syria will do.

[ingemann]

Normally, Syria being out of the headlines like this (no posts in this thread for nearly two months) would be an indication the government is quieting things down, but that is not the case here. Assad is slowly, but surely, losing the war (although this report suggests differently: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/syria-live/are-we-seeing-bashar-al-assads-second-wind/article11222855/).

If it can be confirmed that Assad will certainly lose (which is far from certain), that strengthens the Saudi Arabian position.

Interesting article but there are one paragraph you should focus on

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's really bad news for the rebels, because it sign of a regime with long term planning and it also mean that people under the regime's rule are better off than people in rebel territory. That more than anything will make the population side with the regime.

[ingemann]

Assad promises to attack Israel, if they bomb a site in Syria again

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/2013530194217674256.html

and what would happen then?  Do you think that Israel would invade Syria?

Unless the entire Israeli government have been replaced with complete morons, it won't happen. First the Israel army have in the last 4 decades only worked as a occupation force.
Also the Israeli military have build for fast knock out, not long term military action, so the best they can hope for is weakening the government, rather than taking them out.
Even in Lebanon it worked more like a traditional occupation force. Israels other problem is that everybody hate them in Syria, the rebels moreso than the government.

[ingemann]

A weaker, gayer Assad would be great for the region, as he will recognize Golan Heights as Israel's territory and he will not give arms to Iraq's terrorists.

In foreseen future no Syrian government will recognise the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights, in fact even if the rebels are like their wqestern supporters dream about a bunch secular liberal democrats, they will still not recognise the Israeli claims. As for giving weapon to "terrorists" in Iraq, that's a thing of the time when American desicion makers had wet dreams about invading Iraq, since USA have mostly pulled out of Iraq and the Iraqi government is quite friendly toward Assad, I really doubt you see him sending support to the Iraqi Sunnis today.
 
...and BTW your post is exactly why we should stay out of the Syrian conflict as you people keep making it to a issue about Israel, which may be the worst possible way to way to look at it.

[ingemann]

Great piece in the NYT today

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-price-of-loyalty-in-syria.html?hp

Thanks, it's one of the greatest pierce I have read yet. 

[ingemann]

The government has basically won on the ground thanks to rebel infighting and the West pulling military aid.

The government still seems to be light years away from being able to retake the rebel-held territory in the north and east.  Seems like the country's been divided, and locked in a stalemate for some time now, and that could continue for years to come.

True, but said rebel territory is mostly just sparsely-populated desert.

It's more complex than that, the great central arid region are under government control, the rebels control in the north and east are the rich but relative thinly populated farm land along the Euphrates River.

[ingemann]

Is peace more important than a decent government that respects human rights?

That's not what America is founded on.

"sign"... out of respect to all Americans, who are not this thick, I will not say what I think USA was founded on.

[ingemann]

In the last edition of Foreign Affairs American Middle East expert and former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack suggests that the US should build a brand new Syrian army to fight both IS and the Assad regime. He claims that while it would cost over 100 billion dollars it would still be better than the alternativ. Thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_M._Pollack

I think this may be one of the worst ideas suggested, unless it's because USA plan to inset a brutal military junta in Syria.

1: It's not like USA have been very successful at building armies in the area.
2: This army will lack any democratic oversight.
3: This army will lack any popular support in Syria.
4: This army will lack any base in Syria, and will fundamental be a bunch of mercenaries funded by USA.
5: The recruitment base of these will be exile Syrians and Syrian refugees, the first group seem to lack any connection to the Syrian situation and the second group are in no way representative for the general Syrian population.

In short unless this is a plan for USA to set up their own military dictator, this suggestion seem like a disaster. The only way I could see this being even somewhat useful, is if this force are used in Iraq and used to conquer ISIS territory first in Iraq and later in eastern Syria. Of course the way USA would use such a force would be in southern Syria at the Jordanian border, where they serve to weaken first the less terrible Islamist and later the SAA, resulting in ISIS doing even better.

So in my eyes, he's suggesting using 100 billion dollars to help ISIS taking over most of Syria.

[ingemann]

The Assad regime's forces are just one step away from taking the major city of Aleppo back, according to a few Turkish newspapers.

15.000 FSA (Free Syrian Army) rebel fighters have abandoned the city today.

Turkey says about 2-3 million more Syrian refugess could cross borders if Aleppo falls to the Assad regime again.

Here's a little article from 2013 whicvh explain some of the trouble the rebels had in Aleppo

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE9070VV20130108

[ingemann]

*bump*

So, is this conflict going to continue forever?  Can any side be said to have "momentum" right now?

"Momentum"? No, not really. The Kurds made big gains recently, but the Arab population around Tal Abyad doesn't seem particularly happy to be added to the Kurdish confederation; there appears to be an ongoing ISIS insurgency in that area. And if Turkey actually follows through and invades the strip from Jarablus to the Afrin border, that would most certainly halt Kurdish momentum, and be a great boost to Al Qaeda (Al-Nusra and Friends) and the other paramilitary groups we call "the rebels" fighting in the Aleppo region.

If I had to make a prediction, I'd guess that Assad will abandon his "four corners" strategy and pull back to a more easily defensible line from Damascus to Latakia, leaving the rebels to squabble over interior Syria. But interior Syria and western Iraq will probably be a hellhole of one kind or another for years to come.

This is a rather good analyse, Assad are loking like he's beginning to focus on his core territories, and leaving "government" areas outside this to loyalist Sunni tribes and the random religious minority (mostly Druzes, as the Assyrians outside the core territories have mostly joined the Kurds). So what we're de facto seeing are a split up of Syria into several state-like structures. From a Druze run As-Suwayda Governorate, the Kurdish areas (who seem to be in alliance with the last "moderate" FSA units and the Assyrians), Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) around Aleppo and ISIS. With areas near the Iraqi border being fought over by Sunni tribal loyalist and ISIS and Daara being a cluster fought over by a ISIS, Al Nusra (includes FSA), the Druzes, local Shias etc.

[ingemann]

How many of the boundaries are dynamic (for lack of a better word) and are more prone to skirmishes; and how many are largely "settled".

The YPG government borders and to lesser extent the (green) rebels in the north west and YPG

Beside that the government and ISIS rarely attack each others, as the regime focus on the heavier populated north west. ISIS do attack government enclaves in the east and the government ISIS enclaves in the west, but mostly they ignore each other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Kurds are not really rebels, they're more neutrals (between SAA and FSA) and they do have something of a pro-Assad bias. SAA and NDF several times retreated into Kurdish areas, where they gave the Kurds their heavy weaponry. The government areas in north east are Sunni Arab (loyalist tribes) and Assyrian areas. There have been some conflict between NDF and local pro-Kurdish militias, but everytime the YPG and SAA have stopped the fighting and mediated between the groups.

Ironic further west local remnants of FSA have joined the Kurds, but that's more a common hatred of ISIS which unite them.

The Assyrians in the east have mostly changed loyalty from the government to the Kurds, because the Kurds deliver better protection of them. They have their own militias, but they're inferior to YPG.

YPG have also stopped the Yadizi militias from murdering every Sunni Arab they come across, but there's some indications that YPG look the other way, when the local Arabs cooperated too much in the massacres of Yadizi and sex slavery of their women. Some pro-ISIS tribes have left areas conquered by the Kurds, through that's just as much because of the local anti-ISIS tribes.

A aspect to look at is the Druzes in the south, in general the Druzes while loyal to the government have not taken much part in the fighting. But the local FSA/Al Nusra have massacred Druzes and tried to force convert them. The  Druzes in general have quite a reputation as soldiers and like the Kurds there's much which indicate that this reputation are not undeserved.

[ingemann]

Is the way out of the box here some sort of de facto partition of Syria? That seems to be where Iraq is going. Everybody seems to hate everybody in the Middle East.

Yes and no, we could easily cut of a Kurdish state from Syria (if Turkey wouldn't make a hissy fit over it). But beside that western Syria are too mixed for a partition. While maps show that the Alawites live at the coast, half of them likely live spread out inland, together with different Christian, other Shia and Druze group. So a ethnic partition would take massive ethnic cleansings.

Another problem are that a partition basedf on the borders and factions on the map, would result in a Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) and a ISIS state. This are not a viable solution. The only solution of ISIS are the complete destruction of it, Al Nusra on the other hand, while connected to Al Qaeda are more moderate than ISIS but still horrible and it's mostly based on local Syrians rather than foreign adventures. So maybe a compromise could be reached. But still do anyone want a Al Qaeda Emirate in  northern syria.

A interesting aspect are that if we look on culture and dialects, a split are more possible. Eastern Syria are connected to the culture and dialects in Iraq and if Iraq was partitioned, it would make sense for eastern Syria and Sunni Iraq to join into one state. the western Syrian state would likely still have a Sunni Arab majority, but instead of 60-70% of the population they will barely make up 50%

[ingemann]

When you didn't think that ISIS could get more cartoonish evil.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ingemann]

Another problem are that a partition basedf on the borders and factions on the map, would result in a Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) and a ISIS state. This are not a viable solution. The only solution of ISIS are the complete destruction of it, Al Nusra on the other hand, while connected to Al Qaeda are more moderate than ISIS but still horrible and it's mostly based on local Syrians rather than foreign adventures. So maybe a compromise could be reached. But still do anyone want a Al Qaeda Emirate in  northern syria.

You're not seriously suggesting Jabhat al-Nusra is the "moderate" option these days, right?

There are more "moderate" (or rather less extreme) groups outside the Kurdish areas, but honestly only JAN and ISIS are really the only rebel groups (beside the Kurds and their Arab/FSA auxiliaries) which truly matters, and here you can talk with Al Nusra and even reach compromises (which is why so many minor groups ally with them) while still being horrible people.ISIS on the other hand is a bunch of nihilistic monsters, the only deal you can reach with them, is when they burn in hell. As such JAN are the closest thing Syria have to a unified moderate force which matters. Which is why I think we should not support the rebels and stay entirely out of the conflict.

[ingemann]

There's no doubt that the war have hit Alawites hard, but the number of the percent of Alawites who died have been overrated. First of all they're not the only ones fighting for Assad, the army are also made up of other groups (including Sunni, who is suspected to make up half of his forces), and even if all the estimated government losses was Alawites, and the Alawites was as small a group as the smallest estimates, the losses would be significant but not even close to disasterous.

But there's no doubt manpower is serious a problem, simply because Assad need to both fight, keep control over his territories and still run the Syrian state. Of course he shortening of fronts could help this. Of course we should also remember that while Assad have lost some territory this year, it's not even close to what he gained last year. The Syrian state have gotten much better control over its core territories, but at the same time many of its enclaves and bases in the rest of the country have been lost. The great rebel triumph in the south have not been a great success when we look at the de facto result.

[ingemann]

Russia is bombing the FSA, not ISIS.

The US will be really sad if they kill that one guy who wasn't a jihadist and wanted western style democracy.

No one is under the illusion that the FSA desires "western-style democracy" but the idea that the Syrian rebels are jihadis is inane garbage, peddled by fools who don't recognize the distinction between the political Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood and the political Islam of ISIS or the Al-Nusra Front.

Okay if you say so... so  enlighten us.

[ingemann]

I guess we'll see Russia supporting a joint ground effort by Hizz\Iran\Assad in retaking lots of ground to create a ISIS vs Assad 1 on 1 game that will force the west to accept the survival of the old regime. US moves are very much limited now

Let's see what USA get:

They avoid a Islamist regime in Syria.
They avoid a genocide, through not a general mass murder.
American ME allies who have supported anti-western terrorism, waste their money and young men in Syria.
Russia and Iran get the blame and get to pay for it.

I personally think Obama have played his cards very quite well.

[ingemann]

I guess we'll see Russia supporting a joint ground effort by Hizz\Iran\Assad in retaking lots of ground to create a ISIS vs Assad 1 on 1 game that will force the west to accept the survival of the old regime. US moves are very much limited now

Let's see what USA get:

They avoid a Islamist regime in Syria.
They avoid a genocide, through not a general mass murder.
American ME allies who have supported anti-western terrorism, waste their money and young men in Syria.
Russia and Iran get the blame and get to pay for it.

I personally think Obama have played his cards very quite well.

I'm not so sure of that.  While the Assad regime may have been given another reprieve by its Russian and Iranian allies, it will never reclaim the bulk of the territory it lost to the rebels (including the Islamic State).  The Sunni-dominated areas will either see continued chaos or rule by Islamists. Much like the situation in Iraq.   

ISIS will not survive in the long term, the question are whether the local tribes rebel and replace them, or some kind of Lebanon-style unity government are created between the regime, "FSA" (likely as representants of some of the Sunni tribes) and Kurds, who afterward destroy ISIS. I think the former are the most likely scenario
JAN, the Salafi and the Muslim Brotherhood are better off, as they can slide back into the background and become part of the FSA coalition.
Any Islamist groups who going through the peace process and comes out alive on the other side, will change their skin like a snake and sell themselves as some kind "Islam Democrats" party (with their own army like Hezbollah) in post-civil war Syria. JAN will likely break their bond with Al Qaeda in such a scenario.

[ingemann]

Map with Russian Airstrikes until now



The only thing I do find surprising are that the Russians have bombed ISIS

[ingemann]

Interesting to see the Russians able again to perform (small) force projection, not so many years ago the general consensus in the military "world" was that their army is in shambles and unable to deploy. So I see the modernization process is starting to pay off

It's not really that impressive, Russia have had bases in Syria for decades, so what we see is a expansion of existing infrastructure. Also they have reformed their army: They have chosen a twofold strategy; the bulk of the army are conscripts with little ability to be force projected, but who can defend the homeland and invade near neighbours, quality-wise they seem to be below most western armies, but above most developing countries, of course we have only seem them in use against Georgians and Ukrainians, who both have done well against them, but both of those are better than we would think at first (the Ukrainian morale have been incredible). Beside that they have a "relative" small force which be used to force projection.

I think it will be interesting if the Russians decides to use their infantry offensive in Syria, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a rebel collapse and the rebels reduced to asymmetric warfare like in the American occupation of Iraq. Of course I doubt we will see a long term survival of their forces, when dealing with SAA brutality while the Russian army keep any large scale uprising down.

[ingemann]

they have morale issues

How that plays out is anybody's guess. 

I doubt it's a major issue, the threat to Putin have always been the mothers to soldiers movement, not the soldiers, Russian soldiers have shown themselves willing to die for their land, no matter how moronic a conflict they enter. Of course the conflict with Ukraine is a problem simply because how Russians and Ukrainians see each others, but in Syria (in general positive). But in Syria everybody can defend intervention, they will likely send relative few troops and it can easily be sold to crush Islamic terrorist abroad rather than in Russia.

[ingemann]

Its so cute watching Russia trying to be a hegemonic power again.


I maintain the US needs to stay out of this completely. Picking winners does nothing for us, and we will ultimately just fuel more anti-americanism regardless of what position we take. If Putin wants to experiment with absurd adventurism in the Middle East....thats his prerogative. At the end of the day, Russia doesn't have the economy nor the popular support to sustain a prolonged military campaign in the region regardless of how many times O'Reilly suggests they are going to 'take over the Middle East'.

This is a little more complex than this. The Russian intervention may seem like a attempt "to be a hegemonic power again", and to some point that's correct. But there's also other aspects, Syria have for decades been a Russian allied, Russia's main one in the Middle East. Syria was also before the war home to a large Russian community. The rebels also get support from terrorist organisation which also active in Russia, and at last Russia need this conflict to either end or be clearly in the regime favour before January 20, 2017. The regime, while not in danger of collapse, was not making gain. So it made sense for Russia to intervene and do it now.

[ingemann]

Interesting article from the Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/with-russias-help-the-syrian-army-is-back-on-its-feet-and-fiercer-than-ever-a6698866.html

[ingemann]

Syria and Iraq 30 November 2015



http://www.imagopyrenaei.eu/portfolio/military-situation-syria-iraq-kurdistan/

The most interesting factors right now:

FSA and JAN have attacked YPG at Afrin/Efrin, PYD is beating them and gaining ground, there's rumour that the Turks have ordered FSA (which is Turkmen militias in the area) to attack, there's also rumour that Russia support YPG with bombings.

FSA (this time a Arab moderate Islamist group) is also attacking the Kurdish enclave in Aleppo with the usual lack of results.

YPG are also pushing forward against ISIS in the east in Hasakah.

Rumours tell that the Kurds want to cross the Euphrates, but Turkey threaten with war if the Kurds attack ISIS territories there.

The regime are making small but important gains in northern Latakia, Aleppo, Homs and Daraa against FSA/JAN, while they have also pushed against ISIS at Palmyra and eastern Aleppo.

The Turks have after "suggestions" by Washington stopped taking part in bombings in Syria.

Turks are claiming they're setting up a base in the Mosul area in Iraq (on Kurdish territory, but with the local Kurds blessing... there's a long explanation for that, let's leave it with that), the Iraqi government call for them to leave the area again.