Talk Elections

At least it's a start:

Syria suspended from Arab League (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syria-suspended-from-arab-league/2011/11/12/gIQAvqGxEN_story.html?hpid=z2)

By Liz Sly, Updated: Saturday, November 12, 5:05 PM

BEIRUT — The Arab League approved on Saturday a sweeping package of measures censuring Syria, clearing the way for a significant escalation of international pressure against President Bashar al-Assad and deepening the isolation of his increasingly embattled government.

The 22-member regional body said it would suspend Syria’s membership, impose sanctions and seek U.N. help unless the Syrian government stops using violence to suppress the country’s eight-month-old uprising. At least 3,500 civilians have died in the crackdown, according to the United Nations.

The Arab League also summoned opposition leaders to a meeting within the next three days to formulate “a unified view of the coming transitional period,” offering the clearest indication yet the region is moving closer to the Obama administration position that he should step down.

The unexpectedly severe measures suggested that Arab states are already starting to plan for a post-Assad era. That will in turn increase pressure on other powers that have so far refrained from taking action against Syria, notably Russia, China and Turkey, opening the door to the kind of international consensus on Syria that the United States has been seeking to build, analysts said.

What was the symbolism to the removal of the third star and reversal of red and green?

This year the UN and the Arab League actually did more than just talk!

I think it was an old flag, like in Libya.

The current Syrian flag is the flag the United Arab Republic had.  It took the stripes from the Egyptian flag and place two stars (for Egypt and Syria) in the remaining Pan-Arab color.  The three stars in the old 1932 flag represent three chunks of the French Mandate of Syria (Aleppo, Damascus and Deir es Zor) that were combined to form the autonomous Republic of Syria in 1930.  When two additional chunks of the Mandate (Jebal Duze and Latakia) were added to Syria, they didn't bother to add more stars.

It's good to see that someone is doing something about this. I don't know if it will stop Assad, but I hope it will have some impact.

So it's more like the Arab Sunni League.

Part of an effort to build a pan-arab flag. Note how many arab countries used those colours.

suspended from the Arab League?!  dang, that's like slumming in some podunk dive and being told you're not good enough to gain admittance...

- "It's a private bar.  You're not welcome."
                   
- "Are you tellin' me that I'm not good enough to drink here?"

 

I don't usually agree with jmfcst re: foreign policy, but yeah.  Being told you're too bad to be in the Arab League is actually kind of hilarious.

How long will it be before the Arab League and the West decide to intervene?

Arab League approves sanctions against Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-approves-sanctions-against-syria/2011/11/27/gIQAigPm1N_story.html?hpid=z1)

By Alice Fordham, Updated: Sunday, November 27, 11:06 AM

BEIRUT— The Arab League on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a series of economic sanctions against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, including freezing the assets of senior figures, banning high-level Syrian officials from visiting Arab nations and ending dealings with the country’s central bank.

The decision is the first of its kind by a body which is often perceived as divided and indecisive, and some members are skeptical. Iraq, Lebanon and Algeria abstained from the vote.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Saturday that Iraq has “reservations” about sanctions and analysts doubt Iraq would implement them. And Lebanon, whose government is dominated by groups that support Assad, including the militant political group Hezbollah, also is unlikely to enforce the sanctions.

But the measures, announced in a press conference in Cairo by Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, could nonetheless have a significant impact on the Syrian government and business community, and represent a hardening stance of Arab countries against Assad.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards

Why is everyone so lackadaisical about Syria as opposed to Libya (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132132.0) for which we have at least 90 pages dedicated to it with almost constant updates?  Is it really that boring a topic?  Or is it because the United States isn't directly engaged (at least, not yet) with fighter jets assisting the Free Syrian Army?

Syria is a very, very different conflict than Libya, and while I follow this every day (on the fantastic Middle East in Revolt thread over on SA), there's not a lot to comment on.  There won't be US or Euro intervention, and Syria has proven willing to use the most brutal tactics imaginable to succeed.  The only serious possible outcomes are a Turkish intervention or an Assad victory, and until the situation gets to the point that Erdogan has to make his decision, there's not too much to say.

The last part is probably right, when the jets start blowing up Syrian tanks, then the bits will start flying.

People are less optimistic about the end-game in Syria.

There is no oil in Syria.

But they are a giant pain in the ass.

Perhaps not, but getting rid of the Assad regime would further isolate the mullahs of Iran and leave terrorist groups like Hezbollah hanging in the wind and vulnerable to Lebanon (now freed of Syrian domination) and Israel.  I am sure both states would be more than happy to put Hezbollah in its place. 

That is my interest in the matter -geopolitical. 

Personally I am terrified of the prospect of a bosnia-type situation emerging. Supporting any one side would likely just lead to ethnic conflict on an even wider scale. Also I am not so sure that toppling the Syrian gov. would be as easy as Libya (and that obviously took a good amount of time).

If the actions taken thus far by the Arab League are of any indication, it seems they have decided that the benefits of the ouster of the Assad regime in Syria outweigh the risks -significant though they are (and not to be taken lightly).  They are already planning for a post-Assad Syria through their interactions with the Syrian National Council.    

That's part of it, but also the Syrian conflict is much more complex and difficult to understand, plus there's less hard information coming out.

If Assad was a Sunni Arab and not an Alawi, than the Arab League wouldn't have done anything to him.

Other than sell him tanks and tear gas.

A bunch of dictators is condemning a fellow dictator.

Well, yes. But he is... somewhat worse than they are.

That's why I referred to this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards

Right... I'm pretty sure every single one of them would be incredibly non-violent under similar circumstances.

I think it's fairly clear that they would not be 'incredibly non-violent' under such circumstances, and I think that it is also fairly clear that it would take a fairly mischievous reading of my post to come to the assumption that I think otherwise.

But Syria is effectively a fascist state. Most of the other members of the Arab League... they aren't nice either. But they aren't that.

As for why the lack of attention in comparison to Libya, I suspect that would change if the Free Syrian Army took control of the second largest city in Syria and started a true civil war as opposed to just a guerrilla campaign now.

It's good to see they are taking the initiative. Sadly, they probably never will go as far as military intervention, even though it's probably the only way to get rid of the tyrant.

Am I the only one who remember how Bashar Al-Assad was considered "not that bad"?

The problem is that it's very hard to predict what each Arab dictator would do when confronted with such situation. Could go Ben Ali, could go Mubarak, could go Gaddafi. There are some of them who'd rather go Gaddafi, but aren't in trouble (yet?)


I happen to know some Syrians, both pro- and anti-regime and I can assure you that Syrian opposition is strongly against any foreign military intervention.

Of course, if this would have to happen, it's better that Arabs do it, instead of someone else. 

I see, but is there any other way to stop bloodshed ? It's clear Assad won't give up under any conditions, and he has all the means to stay in power and crush the rebellion. I don't know how protesters could even hope to survive against tanks and artillery.

The bad thing is, of course, that Assad knows very well the opposition doesn't want military intervention so he can sleep at night.

And the problem is that Syria is not Libya: Libyan rebels wanted and loudly demanded military intervention. I'm afraid, as of Syria, military intervention when population really doesn't want this (and managing things after outsing Assad in the process) may be just as bad scenario as doing nothing.

Yes, it really sucks.

And, as I recall, you were very much against military intervention in Libya because you felt that it was nothing more than a tribal dispute.

Actually, I supported an idea of UN-approved intervention that would enforce cease fire. What I didn't support was taking one of sides in the civil war. Libya wasn't just a tribal war, but tribal divisions played a key role here.

Syria isn't that tribal as Libya. Those are more religious divisions we're dealing with (Alawite regime against Muslim majority with Christians supporting the regime because of their own minority status).

The SNC is not the body to talk with.  The Free Syrian Army are doing the fighting, and if Assad is ousted, they will be calling the shots (at least initially). 

On the subject of foreign intervention, I question that the Syrian opposition will be any more supportive of Turkish intervention than they would be of full-blown NATO intervention.  In fact, this could very well stoke old fears of the Turks trying to establish a new Ottoman Empire, however irrational that may seem.

Well, Turkey became very active in the Arab world recently and Aknara's ambitions to play bigger role in the region are no secret. Turkey's influence and, in some cases, prestige is growing and they would be idiots to waste it by entering Syria, because, as Yelnoc rightly pointed out, it will awake all demons of the past.

But, as much as I dislike Erdogan, he's not an idiot.

Syria Risks ‘Full-Fledged Civil War’ Unless Assad Ends Crackdown, UN Says (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/syria-risks-full-fledged-civil-war-unless-assad-ends-crackdown-un-says.html)

By Jennifer M. Freedman and Massoud A. Derhally - Dec 2, 2011 8:22 AM ET

Syria risks being engulfed in a civil war unless President Bashar al-Assad’s government ends its crackdown on opposition protesters, said the top human-rights official of the United Nations.

“The Syrian authorities’ continual ruthless oppression, if not stopped now, can drive the country into a full-fledged civil war,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said at a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

More than 4,000 people have been killed since unrest began in mid-March, tens of thousands have been arrested and more than 14,000 are reported to be in detention, Pillay said today. She called for Syria to be referred to the International Criminal Court and said the international community needs to take “urgent and effective” measures to protect the Syrian people.

The crackdown has continued even as other nations increase economic and political pressure on the Syrian government, which says it is fighting foreign conspirators, armed gangs and Islamists. Demonstrations against al-Assad’s leadership were inspired by the so-called Arab Spring movements that toppled leaders in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

There is another angle that I just thought of.  Kurdish Syrians are playing a big part in the armed resistance to Assad's regime.  Might this display of force give the Turkish Kurds (and/or the Iraqi Kurds) ideas?  I do not think Erdogan (or a successor of his) would ever order a crackdown on an ethnic minority in this day and age, but the world is a crazy place.

Arab League calls on Syria’s Assad to step down (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/arab-league-calls-on-syrias-assad-to-step-down/2012/01/22/gIQAajYhJQ_story.html?hpid=z6)

By Liz Sly, Sunday, January 22, 9:21 PM

DAMASCUS — The Arab League on Sunday called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand over power to his vice president under the terms of a transition plan similar to that which paved the way for the departure, hours earlier, of Yemen’s president for the United States.

The announcement of the plan at a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo signaled growing Arab frustration with Assad’s failure to implement the terms of a peace plan to which he agreed in November, and it offered the clearest indication yet that Arab states want him to step down.

The plan laid down a timetable under which negotiations with the opposition would begin in two weeks and a national unity government would be formed within two months. Assad would then leave office ahead of elections to be held within three months. It was not immediately clear which of two Syrian vice presidents, Farouk al-Shara or Najah al-Attar, would be expected to take over.

The Syrian National Council, the main Syrian opposition coalition, welcomed the initiative as a step toward Assad’s departure, the group’s leader, Burhan Ghalioun, told reporters in Cairo. Activists in Syria have repeatedly said, however, that they will not negotiate with Assad.

It's not time to call him to step down anymore. If they want to do something, they have to intervent now.

When I was more or less off-news during about one month, at one point about 2 weeks ago maybe I heard a bit about some talks of military intervention from Arab League, to which the Tunisian president would have negatively reacted.

In case of any kind of intervention from anybody, it would have to have clear signs it would be mostly welcomed and that the risks of making the situation worse would clearly be not high.

It's becoming a freaking mess over there, and the regime does everything to turns it into a civil war between Sunnis and Alawits. How insane this regime turned...

According to the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, today about 150.000 people gathered in Duma, 20 km from Damas, for the funeral of 12 civilians. A city that soldiers of the Free Syrian Army had taken on Saturday but then they withdrew. Some militants say that the authorities forces stayed on the gates of the cities though. It would be the biggest demonstration in Syria since the beginning of the revolt.

So how long does everyone expect the regime to hold out before calling it quits?

Syrian uprising reaches the edge of Damascus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-revolt-arrives-at-the-capitals-doorstep/2012/01/29/gIQAN0kDbQ_story.html)

By Liz Sly, Sunday, January 29, 9:38 PM

DAMASCUS — The upheaval that has roiled much of Syria for the past 10 months is seeping its way into the heart of the country’s capital, puncturing the sense of invulnerability that had until recently sustained confidence in the government’s ability to survive the revolt.

On Sunday, security forces launched a major assault to reclaim suburbs just a short drive from the city center that had fallen under the sway of rebel soldiers fighting under the banner of the Free Syrian Army.

-snip-

With the crisis closing in on the capital, a siege mentality is starting to take hold. Roads leading out of Damascus no longer are deemed safe because of the threat of ambush, and stories of bandits stalking the hills surrounding the city further add to the anxiety.

No idea, though I expect they'll still be in place by summer. Hopefully by year's end they're gone or nearly gone.

I had read on another message board that Assad was moving every spare tank, chopper, rifle and round to the west coast in the hopes of maintaining an Alawite state after Syria as a unit collapses.

I don't think Assad is dumb enough to think a revived État des Alaouites would be anything more than a short term solution.  Of course, he hay have come to the conclusion that he has no long term solution.

This is beginning to really remind me of the Chinese Civil War. On the one side, a morally bankrupt dictator with overwhelming conventional military power concentrated in the big cities. On the other side, a mostly rural group of rebels with greater popular support and rapidly growing numbers and weaponry despite still being massively outgunned.

If Syrian rebels eventually succeed, they deserve massive kudos for doing despite utter foreign inaction.

They'd much rather do it on their own.

Big guns aren't as useful when the people that are supposed to operate them keep defecting.

Not really, they seem to be quite supportive of foreign intervention.
But they are not going to get it, so they will have to do it alone.

Well opposition is getting SERIOUS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57375542/syrian-general-slain-in-damascus-regime-says

I think it's obvious how they're going to operate now to speed up the collapse of the regime since it's obvious what will happen to any official who stood with Assad if Assad were to flee and the regime fell. How many non-exiled SAVAK officers survived into the 80s?

Nothing says that the opposition did it.

All what is blown all over Syrian State TV is suspect. Same for Alep terrorist attacks.

Could as well be the fact that this high-ranked official could have been close to defect to the opposition, no matter how he would be depicted as close to the regime or not, denounced by one of the thousands Syrian secret services, and then executed by them. Win-win operation, eliminate a betrayer, and accuse opposition of murder.

Could also be some isolated part of the opposition, there are several petty attempts at creating some new opposition forces that wouldn't necessarily be in line with the mainstream ones.

One week ago, there was a quite interesting one hour debate about it on France24, in which the spokeswoman of the Free Syrian Army said that a small group who had already claimed the death of a colonel on last Monday was totally small, not tied to them, and led by a small wanna be Saddam Hussein. She also said that the cooperation and the coordination between the Free Syrian Army and the National Syrian Council was under construction but kept going bigger, those 2 entities trying to be the most coordinated possible and imposing themselves as the only credible opposition in Syria. If something likes that happens we would be with an official political alternative which has its official force, something stronger that gives still more credit to the opposition, inside and outside of the country.

What happened yesterday is quite important, it shows a determination of the Arab League not to abandon Syria, and it's the 1st time an operation with external forces and/or external material and political help will be officially proposed. Also, since yesterday seems that the NSC will be more and more considered like the official opposition entity and maybe it could reach the status of official representation of Syria, like what happened with NTC in Libya.

The French and/or Qatari initiative (I'm not sure) to create a council of the 'Friends of the Syrian Revolution' is one more step toward a stronger support of Syria, and one week ago some people said that this structure could even be eventually used to skip the decision of the UNSC, to eventually go toward an intervention, some forces or some help. It will gether itself for the 1st time in Tunis in a few days, it could eventually be the occasion for NSC to become this official entity of the opposition, then maybe it's not time for them to screw their credibility with assassinations, I'd be surprised those things are approved by those who lead those entities.

The fancy band of brothers that opposed the UNAG, without surprise:

Belarus
Bolivia
Cuba
China
Ecuador
Iran
Nicaragua
North Korea
Russia
Syria
Venezuela
Zimbabwe.

Could eventually be the list of countries to know some regime change in a more or less short term.

Those who abstained:

Angola
Algeria
Armenia
Cameroon
Comoros
Fiji
Lebanon
Myanmar
Namibia
Nepal
Sri Lanka
St. Vincent
Suriname
Tanzania
Tuvalu
Uganda
Vietnam

Yesterday Juppé spoke with Lavrov in Vienna, after that he said that a compromise with Russia could be possible on the short term to, at least, send a humanitarian help through a next UN resolution, he had to make clear a next Libya would be out of question.

Maybe Moscow always need to have a Stalingrad to move then...

Lavrov stated that it wouldn't accept an 'inequitable' resolution though. Then nothing done but if it continues to turn into war massacres, Russia's rhetoric about 'equality of treatment' will look weaker and weaker...

Big demonstration day all over Syria today apparently, Homs, Hama, Idleb, Deraa, for the main ones, with a tough repression in those cities too, but also, for the 1st time, there has been significant demonstrations in some districts of Damas and Alep, which almost didn't move so far.

Too bad.

Big difference is that Syria is riddled with sectarian undertones, where the dominant minority is genuinely afraid of the majority.

A lot of the rebels are probably Sunni fundamentalist assholes anyway.

Evacuation of injured people from Homs has begun about 2 hours ago by a joint-convoy of Red Cross and Syrian Red Crescent, announced by the spokeswoman of International Committee of Red Cross on France24, and this after several days of negotiations with authorities and opposition. Oh the spokeswoman is speaking again, she announces that 7 women and children have just been evacuated from the murdered district of Bab Amr to the hospital of Homs, and that the ICRC is looking for more action all over the country.

The conference of the 'Friends of Syria' (renamed the 'Enemies of Syria' on Syrian TV) didn't give a lot apparently.

Overall officially rejects any kind of military intervention, directly or by sending weapons, only KSA would preach for sending weapons. Not much clear though because Tunisia and Qatar would preach for an Arab peace keeping force. Apparently mainly new sanctions are planed, notably from EU. And Kofi Annan would become the special envoy for UN and Arab League. Interesting thing, in the press conference that closed the summit about an hour ago, the amnesty for Assad's family would be rejected, unlike what was said in the opening of the conference. Also comforted the NSC in its role of main opposition force but didn't give it an international recognition role, unlike Lybia's NTC, inviting it to integrate the most Syrian representativity possible (which I guess means, 'please try to convince the most Alawites possible'), that one said being disappointed by those decisions.

Nothing clear and significant then, next meeting in 3 weeks in Istanbul.

Bump..

Should be merget with Gerenal Syria Thread

According to Al-Arabiyah, there was an assasination attempt on Assad today, when he was visiting already seized Homs.

This is just a rumour with no official confirmation.

I really don't see how the "end of the Bashar Al Assad Regime" is "in sight" right now.

It appears that Assad regime will slaughter few more thousands and regain control. There will be a loud outrage abroad, some time of isolation, and then, in few years, we'll see total normalization in foreign relations.

So typical story, isn't it?

Anyways, I've never had the impression he was seriously under threat (unfortunately).

Assad was saved by Gaddafi.

Indeed.  Some people aren't worth saving it seems.  Yeah, yeah, an attack might kill thousands (mostly bastards loyal to Assad) and would be horrible....as if leaving him in power is somehow less horrible.  But the pansies can feel safe in knowing they stopped another dreaded invasion of a foreign land by the warmongering West. ::)

Well, this is a start:

At Meeting, Nations Move to Expand Aid for Syrian Rebels (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/world/middleeast/us-and-other-countries-move-to-increase-assistance-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=1&hpw=&pagewanted=all)

By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: April 1, 2012
 
ISTANBUL — The United States and dozens of other countries moved closer on Sunday to direct intervention in the fighting in Syria, with Arab nations pledging $100 million to pay opposition fighters and the Obama administration agreeing to send communications equipment to help rebels organize and evade Syria’s military, according to participants gathered here.

The moves reflected a growing consensus, at least among the officials who met here this weekend under the rubric “Friends of Syria,” that mediation efforts by the United Nations peace envoy, Kofi Annan, were failing to halt the violence in Syria and that more forceful action was needed. With Russia and China blocking measures that could open the way for military action by the United Nations, the countries lined up against the government of President Bashar al-Assad have sought to bolster Syria’s beleaguered opposition through means that seemed to stretch the definition of humanitarian assistance.

The offer to provide salaries and communications equipment to rebel fighters known as the Free Syrian Army — with the hopes that the money might encourage government soldiers to defect, officials said — is bringing the loose Friends of Syria coalition to the edge of a proxy war against Mr. Assad’s government and its international supporters, principally Iran and Russia.
-----------------------------------------------------

Perhaps in the not too distant future we can expand the aid to actual weapons...   

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-iraq-syria-idUSTRE81D0NX20120214

Iraqi fighters, arms trickle into Syria as violence grows


By Khalid al-Taie
MOSUL, Iraq | Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:44am EST
(Reuters) - Weapons and Sunni Muslim insurgents are seeping from Iraq into Syria, Iraqi officials and arms dealers say, fuelling violence in a country that once sent guns and militants the other way.

The revolt against Syria's President Bashar al-Assad has struck a chord with Sunni tribes in Iraq's border provinces of Anbar and Ninawa, where strong family ties across the poorly guarded frontier have long favored contraband and trafficking.

Iraq, awash with weapons since the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein, is still plagued by violence from al-Qaeda affiliates, Sunni Islamists, fighters tied to Saddam's Baathist party, Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias and criminal gangs.

Now Iraqi security officials say there are signs Sunni insurgents are beginning cross the border to join Assad's opponents, and gun smugglers are cashing in as prices double for weapons reaching concealed in commercial cargoes.

Erdogan may invoke NATO's Article 5 (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-277185-.html)If we're gonna do something, the sooner the better.  If we're going to sit around with our thumbs up our collective butts we should probably start coming up with some good excuses to tell our grandkids why we let this play itself out.

This might eventually clear the way for a military intervention, assuming that this effort fails to stop the fighting:

U.N. Security Council authorizes team of up to 300 cease-fire observers in Syri (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/un-authorizes-team-of-up-to-300-cease-fire-monitors-in-syria/2012/04/21/gIQAPLdzXT_story.html?hpid=z2)a

By Colum Lynch and Alice Fordham, Updated: Saturday, April 21, 3:13 PM

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council voted Saturday to establish a full-fledged U.N. mission, with up to 300 unarmed military observers and an unspecified number of civilian specialists, to monitor a shaky cease-fire between the Syrian government and armed opposition forces.

The newly minted U.N. Supervision Mission in Syria is set to reinforce a small advance team that began testing the nine-day-old cease-fire this week with visits to a handful of Syrian towns, including a trip Saturday to the city of Homs, the scene of a military crackdown in recent months.

The agreement marks a public show of unity among the United Nations’s fractious big powers in support of U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan’s six-point plan for ending 13 months of deadly upheaval and clearing the way for a political settlement between President Bashar al-Assad’s government and a diverse array of armed and civilian opponents. The Security Council resolution authorizes the new mission for an initial 90 days but does not include a timetable for its deployment, leaving that decision to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

After the vote, Susan E. Rice, the United States’s U.N. ambassador, said that although the Obama administration supports the move, there should be “no illusions” that a small mission of U.N. observers will necessarily be capable of halting the Syrian crackdown and that the United States is prepared to pull the plug on it after 90 days if Syria does not comply with Annan’s peace plan.

The United States is finally moving to arm the rebels....

US poised to vet possible arms for Syrian rebels (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018277279_apusussyria.html)

By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press

WASHINGTON —

As one diplomatic effort after another fails to end more than a year of brutal violence in Syria, the Obama administration is preparing a plan that would essentially give U.S. nods of approval to arms transfers from Arab nations to some Syrian opposition fighters.

The effort, U.S. officials told The Associated Press, would vet members of the Free Syrian Army and other groups to determine whether they are suitable recipients of munitions to fight the Assad government and to ensure that weapons don't wind up in the hands of al-Qaida-linked terrorists or other extremist groups such as Hezbollah that could target Israel.

The plan, which has not yet been finalized, reflects U.S. frustration that none of the previous efforts - including diplomatic rhetoric from the United Nations and the multinational Friends of Syria group, and special envoy Kofi Annan's plan for a cease-fire - has even begun to nudge President Bashar al-Assad from power. The vetting would be the first tiny step the U.S. has made toward ensuring that the Syrian opposition uses the weapons to fight Assad and not to turn it into a full sectarian conflict.

While some intelligence analysts worry that there may be no suitable recipients of lethal aid in the Syria conflict, the vetting plan has arisen as the least objectionable idea in a complicated situation.

Good....'bout freaking time.

Oh goody, another oil war.

Aren't you such a rebel?

But anyways Russia and/or China will probably veto any meaningful intervention. 

For all that oil in Syria...right.  ::)

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.

I saw a car yesterday with a picture of Bashar Assad in military uniform taped in the back window.
That was... surprising.

Not necessarily in Syria, but either as a jumping-off point for other nations with a good chunk more oil, or to sorta calm tensions (or create a big diversion so those nations can take their own measures to "calm tensions") in nations that have oil and want to sell it (GCC in general, Saudi in particular).

Is it me, or is the Syrian civil war starting to look as much like Bosnia as Libya?

I'm worried that it reminds me somewhat of Congo.

Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/for-obama-intervening-in-syria-would-be-good-policy-and-good-politics/2012/06/01/gJQAtue26U_story.html) is an excellent opinion piece stating how Obama intervening in Syria would be to his advantage.  

Whatever your opinion on the merits of intervention in Syria, I have to admit President Obama has been anything but a leader on this issue, and his dithering doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his leadership.  

That article is way too rosy about the results of the sort of intervention it calls for.  I haven't anything that half-baked since Cheney and Company were sounding the war drums for us to kick Saddam out of Iraq.   The sad fact is that sometimes there is no good option, in which case, let's for once pick the least expensive, which means not arming the Syrian opposition ourselves.

The 'least expensive option' isn't the one that will prevent the most suffering.

Actually it probably is - at least if you primarily measure suffering as loss of lives and property. A regime repression of the opposition is most likely going to be the least bloody outcome, if thats all you care about (which is in no way my position). Huge massacres on Alawites and Christians are going to be hard to avoid if the insurgents win.

Here's a far more bleak take on intervention in Syria:

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/

I see no reason to believe that arming the Syrian opposition now will achieve that.

The 'Syrian opposition' has a wonderful slogan:  "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the wall!"

Better than the Syrian government's: "Kill everyone who opposes us"

Ah yes, the Syrian opposition isn't exactly pacifist Whiggish liberals.

It looks like the Free Syrian Army has benefited as this crisis has dragged on and on:

Syria rebels gaining ground, strength (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syria-rebels-gaining-ground-strength/2012/06/08/gJQAYDB9NV_story.html?hpid=z2)

By Liz Sly,

BEIRUT — An increasingly effective Syrian rebel force has been gaining ground in recent weeks, stepping up its attacks on government troops and expanding the area under its control even as world attention has been focused on pressuring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to comply with a U.N. cease-fire.

The loosely organized Free Syrian Army now acknowledges that it is also no longer observing the truce, although rebel commanders insist they are launching attacks only to defend civilians in the wake of concerns generated by two recent massacres in which most of the 186 victims were women and children.

The rebels say they are acquiring access to ammunition and funding that had been in short supply a few months ago, streamlining their structures to improve coordination and steadily eroding the government’s capacity to control large swaths of the country.

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).

How about we decide to intervene when we're not 16 trillion dollars in debt. Can't worry about the rest of the worlds problems until you fix your own.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302261/report-rebels-responsible-houla-massacre-john-rosenthal

None of our business... hilarious to see the Atlas centre-leftists being the main cheerleaders for another war in the Middle East...

Have any mainstream news outlets picked this story up?  Because I have looked at the Washington Post and New York Times, and neither is carrying it.  Nor is Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/11/us-syria-crisis-massacres-idUSBRE85A1DY20120611).  Must be a non-conspiratorial reason why they haven't.  Perhaps the respectable publications doubt this story's veracity as I do. 

No, because mainstream media is a bunch of pigdog imperialists.  The only reliable sources are RT and Syrian state television.

I'm surprised this thread has been so quiet.

I made this observation before, and the answer is typically because -unlike with its more active Libyan counterpart- we have no skin in this game.  We don't (yet) have fighter pilots assisting the opposition.  Therefore people aren't as emotionally invested since American lives are not at risk.  We as Americans are merely spectators -not active participants.    

That's not the point.  The point is, unlike with Libya, there's not a lot we can do without a serious, long-term commitment.  The Libyan intervention was accomplished without a single NATO soldier on the ground and with no NATO casualties and limited collateral damage (from NATO, not from the Libyan rebels).  This was mainly due to Libya's spacious deserts allowing for an effective bombing campaign that could target Qaddafi's military effectively without endangering civilians.  Little, heavily-urbanized Syria is a completely different situation.  A NATO bombing campaign would kill far more civilians than Assad at his worst.

If there does end up being intervention, which, frankly, I doubt at this point, it will be Turkish with US backing and not American directly.  If there isn't, Assad wins.

More to the point, we've been having this exact same conversation for over a year.  None of the fundamentals change.  Why should this thread be more active when the fundamentals of the debate don't change?

I just meant that I'm surprised this thread has seen some activity in the past, but has been so quiet this past week as the conflict seems to be escalating so much.

Syrian pilot defects after landing in Jordan
 link (http://www.dailyairforce.com/1114/syrian-pilot-defects-after-landing-in-jordan.html)Lets hope (or pray if you're into that kind of thing) he has no family or that they are already out of the country.

Syria shoots down Turkish F-4 (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/syria-apologizes-for-taking-down-turkish-warplane-turkish-pm.aspx?pageID=238&nID=23802&NewsCatID=341)

Pilots are apparently alive and in Syrian custody.  Syria does not want to provoke war with Turkey and will likely hand the pilots over.

More high ranking defections: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18445370

Starting to look what happened with Gaddafi's regime, only a couple months later.

Turkey threatens to cut off Syrian electricity.

Mixed bag, as that would mostly hurt civilians. 

Has any one else read reports that the rebel commanders are expelling Christians from areas under their control?

Supposedly one of the rebel factions has "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to Hell" as its motto.  :P

The rebellion is a pretty diverse grouping ideologically (it's not even really one thing other than "opposed to Assad"), but there's some unsavory people in there, yeah.

And that's my concern- I want to stop massacres as much as the next sailor but will the alternative be worse? It seems we don't know at this point

I always tend to lean on the side of "even if the alternative is unknown, we can't let governments mow people down". 

The problem with the Syria situation is all the alternatives are terrible.  In my view, at this point, the least terrible (and still very bad) solution would be a Turkish (not US) intervention with Turkish troops safeguarding the populace, but even that would be a horrifying bloody catastrophe and I wouldn't fault Turkey for not wanting to commit to that.

Erdogan saber-rattles:

Erdogan: The history of our nation didn't start in 1923. Nine centuries ago, a hero from Anatolia protected Damascus & Jerusalem.
Erdogan: For many centuries, our ancestors didn't differentiate between Istanbul or Damascus, Mekka or Aleppo. #Turkey
Erdogan: Neither the lines drawn as borders of Syria, nor the despotic regime, can prevent the friendship of the 2 nations. #Syria #Turkey

This is going to be an absolute and utter catastrophe.

The neo-Ottomanist rhetoric is an...odd...move for a PM of Turkey.

Its a development that has been under way for a long time. A more positive evaluation of the Ottoman heritage has been part of Erdogans retoric from at least the late the 80s.

The "Bashar al-Assad to no longer be President of Syria before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012" market on Intrade traded at 60.0 on last transaction....highest it's been in several months.

Two Syrian generals(!) allegedly kidnapped by FSA in Damascus suburbs.

There's already been killings of Syrian generals so it's nothing new, of course kidnapping's a bit more difficult than just a drive-by shooting.

Turkey sends military convoys toward Syrian border (http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12454945-turkey-sends-military-convoys-toward-syrian-border?lite)

Does anyone doubt there's already covert Turkish special forces in Syria now?

Yeah, the shocking thing is that they got some top brass captured alive.  When going up against someone as ruthless as Assad, having high-profile hostages is a nice bargaining chip.

Interesting map.  Can't totally vouch for its accuracy, but given the situation, it seems reasonably correct and lines up well with Aleppo being the major battle ground.

()

In other news, 85 Syrian soldiers defected to Turkey.

Syrian military at start of crisis numbered ~300,000 people.  Turkey is estimating that over the past year a full 30k of those have either defected or deserted.

Still leaves 270K plus any expansion Assad may have done.

From what I've read elsewhere, the vast majority are confined to barracks for fear they will go home or to the other side.

Syrian Republican Guards general Manaf Tlass, once a personal friend of Assad's, defects to Turkey along with his father.

The father is this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Tlass who was MoD from 1972 tell 2004.

Classy fellow!You can really taste the irony here.

Tlass and his father also have extensive (and somewhat bizarre) personal connections with prominent members of the French far-right (Syria used to be a French colony and the upper-class population is Francophone).  The Tlasses are one of the most important Sunni families in Syria and are hooked up with a lot of interesting people.

As Brown Moses Blog (which I think is the best starting place for analysis of Syria news the last few weeks) argues, "What this shows is that the 5 day visit to Syria I reported on yesterday wasn't just a one off event between the far right and Tlass family, but part of an ongoing relationship between the Tlass family and major figures in the French far right.  These links need to be exposed at a time when it's rumoured that Tlass will be promoted by the French to be part of any Syrian transitional government."

Meet Manaf Tlass:

()

()

()

Manaf Tlass, middle, at play.  Pictured with Frédéric Chatillon, former head of these lovely people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_Union_D%C3%A9fense  Also pictured is Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, famed for his French anti-Semitic stand-up comedy (as in, one of his videos is literally titled L’Antisémite).

Tlass really has the "bad boy" thing going.

Looks like a dead ringer for Tony Curtis in this photo.

Mustafa Tlass (Fmr. Syrian Minister of Defense,Manaf's dad) apparently has a 3700 page (not a typo) memoir.   Not even Churchill had the stamina to lie about himself for 3700 pages.

If Aleppo falls to the rebels, that would be a game-changer by setting off a domino-effect in the country that could ultimately leave the Assad regime isolated in pockets centered around Damascus and along the coast. 

Are there any indications that Aleppo is on the brink? 

Red Cross states Syria is in civil war (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18849362)

Major turmoil in Damascus today, as FSA launches a surprise offensive in the Syrian capital.

http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-16-17-28-58

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/07/20127189355415804.html

Great news!

CBS This Morning, stated that it wasn't a suicide bomber, but was instead an explosion of previously planted explosives.

Lots going on today. Many rumors, difficult to tell what's actually happening, but this is a kind of Tet Offensive.  Strike way behind enemy lines, massive infiltration of the enemy army suddenly becomes apparent, destroy enemy morale...

Huge defections today.  If even half the stories of defections today are accurate, Assad's regime is leaking like a sieve.  At this rate, pretty soon Assad will be down to just his fellow Alawites.

Confusion as to whether the attack was a suicide bomb or a previously-planted bomb, we likely won't know the truth for a long time.

Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah gave a speech expressing solidarity with Assad's regime...since Syria is one of Hezbollah's two backers, along with Iran, Assad's regime collapsing would have devastating effects on Hezbollah.  Might Hezbollah, in desperation, launch a coup in Lebanon?

One of the rumors is that the defense minister and deputy were killed by someone on the inside (possibly one of their own security guards), because the thinking is that it would have taken someone on the inside to get that close to them.

I don't see how it could be otherwise.  It has inside job written all over it.

Question of the day: does Assad A. take his chances in Damascus, B. retreat to Lattakia and prepare to continue the fight on friendly ground, or C. take the next flight to Moscow and call it quits?

I doubt he leaves Damascus. Any authority he still has rests on his government being the legitimate government of Syria. The moment he leaves the capital the stream of defections becomes a flood. I doubt he changes policy now, all he has to do is soldier on, slowly culling the opposition with aid from the Russians. The status quo isn't a killer for him yet.

Wow, quite shocking news. I didn't think the rebels would be able to inflict such harms to the regime. Does that indicate the tides are turning ? I'd like to think so, but I fear the civil war is far from being over...

http://www.understandingwar.org/press-media/graphsandstat/evolution-syria%E2%80%99s-opposition

who should we support?

The rebels, certainly. These figures (to me) attract much more sympathy than the Libyan rebels, and we intervened militarily to support those.

yes, problem is the latter fact.  you have a mob on one hand and the germ of yet another neoliberal state on the other.  quite a theoretical bind

Nice reminder to Assad: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/18/227047.html

Good follow-up to a day that had the killing of several of his inner circle.

I tentatively agree, although at this point I think the rebels should start to get serious about uniting and organizing themselves into a plausible alternative government now that it finally looks as if Bashar al-Assad's regime might be beginning to crumble.  Before today, I can understand why they didn't feel the urgency but since the lifespan of the regime is now being measured in weeks -not months- they need to quit procrastinating and get on to it.  Make it easier for the international community (and the United States) to lend its support to their cause. 

There is rumor that Assad has in fact fled to Lattakia and that the Army is redistributing their Scuds and topping them with mustard gas.  In slightly more concrete news, Jordan is deploying German owned (but US built and with our approval) Patriot missile defense systems to protect themselves....and (wait for it).....Israel from possible Syrian missile attacks.

cite (http://www.timesofisrael.com/jordan-to-deploy-patriots-to-protect-israel-from-syrian-attack-says-le-figaro/)

Seems like Assad could follow the Gaddafi route pretty quickly now.

"Bashar al-Assad to no longer be President of Syria before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012" is traded at only 63.0% on Intrade. Buy... buy now.

Well, less then one day later it turns out I'm completely wrong. NPR is now reporting that he's fled Damascus. I had no idea the rebels were doing this well. I kinda thought it was a fluke.

Yeah, it seems that Syria as we knew it is done.  Good riddance.

FSA controls all the border checkpoints on the Syrian-Iraqi border, according to the Iraqi government.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ispIrLdwmKGnbZc_TzlUOPGFyeow?docId=CNG.eeb39b7412701b678cf051d8c5bf6266.391

And even more good news, Iran Quds Force Commander Killed in Damascus blast link (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/158048#.UAkPvI45fgI)

yes people dying is always good news.  if more people died everything would be solved.  "no man, no problem"  - Stalin

The case for pessimism!: The violence in Syria may be a long way from being over:

link (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/07/whether_bashar_al_assad_falls_or_not_the_fighting_in_syria_is_likely_to_persist_for_a_long_time_.single.html)

Yes, that's exactly what I said. ::)  Your idiocy is extra high tonight, there a reason?

Israel may seize advanced weapons in Syria  (http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=278314)

20-30k people from Damascus flee to Lebanon.

Between that and Damascus' Alawites fleeing for the coast, the old city must be feeling a bit empty (in addition to being an all-out warzone).

Kurdish nationalists in Syria make their play, seizing two towns in Syria's remote northeast and attempting to take a third.  Syria has a relatively small Kurdish population, but Syrian Kurdistan is removed pretty far from where most of Syria's population is concentrated.

()

you cheered a death, and I extrapolated.

It's official -the Obama administration is now focused on overthrowing Bashar al-Assad's regime (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018742903_syria22.html). 

It's about time. 

The Obama administration should be focused on thee economy.

Multitasking is a thing that happens.

Let's not overestimate these politicians.

The regime is getting desperate -they are threatening to unleash the hounds of hell from their stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons if any foreign power intervenes on behalf of the rebels. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018750548_apmlsyria.html)

Which is funny, because they've always claimed they didn't have them.  link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2950321.stm)
Of course the rest of the world put their fingers in their ears and said "nah nah nah, I can't hear you, nah nah nah".

Is it possible that Syria is making a desperate bluff in order to prevent NATO from getting involved?

What do you mean?  That they don't have Chem and Bio weapons? (they certainly do) or that they wouldn't use them in this situation?...but then why have them?

Has this been confirmed by international inspectors, or do they have them in the same sense that Saddam Hussein "had" them? (in a desperate bluff to thwart another Iranian invasion (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-06-24/news/17925882_1_saddam-hussein-al-qaeda-iraq))

I'm reminded of this epic quote from Baghdad Bob:

"It has been rumored that we have fired scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any scud missiles and I don't know why they were fired into Kuwait."

Is this in reaction to my skepticism? I was asking an honest question, as game theory would dictate that Syria is better off claiming to have weapons regardless of if they are actually there.

I suppose it's possible, I seriously doubt it though.  Of course neither of us have any skin in the game.  Those that do should take the threat seriously though....no?  I'm guessing you wouldn't care if some of it fell into the hands of the Hezzys, but I'm sure those living in Tel Aviv and Beirut do though.

Of course I would not support intervention regardless of if Syria is being honest. I just don't want a self-preservation measure to be construed as a casus belli as it was for another embattled dictator 9 years ago.

Weren't most of those missiles not Scuds anyway?

Yeah, about that. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-look-back-at-the-houla-massacre-in-syria-a-845854.html)It seems they (the media) were right the first time.

Regime describes battle in Aleppo as "Mother of All Battles" as Regime simultaneously struggles to regain control of Damascus.

They're seriously quoting Saddam circa 1990?

I think it's a reference to the original Battle of al-Qadisiyyah, and that that name is sort of a cultural touchstone that both Assad and Saddam drew on independently, not a reference to Saddam.  I could be wrong, though.

I suddenly feel better about the rebels' chances of taking Aleppo and overthrowing the regime.

Yes, that sounds right, although WaPo also notes Old Testament references.

Still, bad precedent...

Turkey arms the rebels with SAMs now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/31/us-usa-syria-missiles-idUSBRE86U1T920120731

Major misstep on the FSA's part as they execute major Regime figure in Aleppo Zaino Berri.  Berri was the head of the 5,000+ member Berri clan, and the clan has pledged vengeance on the FSA, lending their weapons and support to the Regime.

Kofi Annan has just called it quits. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-syria-kofi-annan-20120802,0,5382106.story) 

Iran’s Hizbullah sends more troops to help Assad storm Aleppo, fight Sunnis (http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/07/29/irans-hizbullah-sends-more-troops-to-help-assad-storm-aleppo-fight-sunnis/)
Meanwhile, Iran TV: 48 Iranians kidnapped in Syria (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4264252,00.html)

I have to wonder if this is a false flag operation intended to justify sending in Iranian "security personnel".

Maybe, but I don't like to jump to the false flag conclusion without a bit of proof, even if it is a lying, sh**tty state that would totally do something like that.

..and there is already more than a few Iranians fighting there, and that's not counting the Hezzys.

On that subject, it's probably good in the long run for Lebanon that the most experienced fighters are leaving their home to go die in Syria.  Maybe when all the sh**t settles, all the Xtians will leave Syria, settle in Lebanon and bring their numbers back to their historical rates.

...of course that could likely lead to another civil war in that country, which wouldn't be good for anybody (except for those selling old military gear).

I can't believe you are openly advocating ethnic cleansing of Syrian Christians. I thought that was merely an unstated assumption.

Aside from the obvious moral obstacle, do you not see any unintended consequences from such an action? Is it possible that the Christian refugees might look slightly more favorably toward the Shiites that protected them from religious persecution versus the West that backed Sunni extremists that drove them out of their homeland of thousands of years?

Perhaps I didn't use my words very good there.  I'm certainly not advocating ethnic cleansing of anybody.

The FSA is now saying that the 48 Iranian "hostages" are actually Revolutionary Guards.  link (http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/hostages-in-syria-are-iranian-guards-2012-08-05-1.470249)
In the same article, it mentions that Syria's first astronaut has left the regime, visited the rebels and then went to Turkey.

Found a nifty little map showing the distribution of the sectarian groups within Syria, as well as parts of surrounding countries, including Turkey and all of Lebanon:

()

I wish these maps wouldn't confuse ethnicity and religion like that re: Kurds.

Why does it show Kurds in Syria but not Turkey or Iraq?

Laziness probably.

Kurds are predominately Sunni (except for those that belong to that weird offshoot religion whose creation story sounds like the background plot of an anime and that Muslims accuse of being Satan worshipers...I don't think any of those are in Syria though, almost all are in Iraq) so Sunni on the map really means "Sunni Arab".

In the case of Turkey, I don't think they keep official statistics on the "mountain Turks".  It's only recently that Turkish governments have even begin to admit that the Kurds might be something other than Turks using a local dialect.

I didn't realize that Christians actually constituted a plurality in any part of Syria; I just assumed they were an urban minority. Based on the map, the Christians might be more fortunate than I thought in that the areas in which they are predominant would most likely be absorbed into the Alawite rump state.

More defections today, this time including the Prime Minister as well as other government officials (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-tv-says-bomb-has-exploded-at-state-tv-building-in-damascus-injuring-several-people/2012/08/06/a91fc8e8-df95-11e1-8d48-2b1243f34c85_story.html?hpid=z1).


If the Alawites (and the Christians) elect to become part of Lebanon, the government there is going to want to consider renaming itself 'Phoenicia', considering just how much of the historical territory of ancient Phoenicia an extended Lebanon will cover:

()

Looks like Ralph Peters (http://live.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899) was eerily precognitive

The PMs replacement is a alawite.

Erdogan went there:

The rebels have lost a "key district" of Aleppo.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19192413 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19192413)

Lebanon isn't going to take sudden demographic changes too well.

Speaking of Lebanon a former minister and pro-Syrian regime guy there was arrested "for security reasons,"  http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/49451-michel-samaha-arrested-for-security-reasons

and Two top clerics call on Lebanon’s Shiites to back Syrian uprising (http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=426494#ixzz2358OsRu1)

Rebels claim to have downed a Syrian jet (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19246708)

The footage is on YouTube and is already being linked to in other stories - it's a MiG-23BN, a supersonic ground-attack jet.

The UN has ended its observer mission in Syria:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/UN-ends-observer-mission-in-Syria-as-Aleppo-under-renewed-attack/articleshow/15527837.cms
 (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/UN-ends-observer-mission-in-Syria-as-Aleppo-under-renewed-attack/articleshow/15527837.cms)

"Assad to no longer be President of Syria by Dec. 31, 2012" is down to 46.1 on Intrade.  It hasn't been a good couple of weeks for the opposition, though I still think Assad is doomed in the long run.

Bashar al-Assad goes clean-shaven in his first public appearance in a month:

()

Few tidbits.  Maher al-Assad, Bashar's little bro, was wounded a few days ago, still some confusion on that.

More relevant to most of us, an American journalist named Austin Tice has gone missing in Syria and hasn't been heard from in two weeks.  Either he's lost his phone or something is seriously wrong.

Paris backs Syria no-fly zone as fighting grows (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/aug/23/paris-backs-syria-no-fly-zone-as-fighting-grows/)

Let's hope this is more than lip service...

Iran Said to Send Troops to Bolster Syria (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444230504577615393756632230.html?mod=WSJEurope_hpp_MIDDLETopStories)

Current, useful map of control, for those interested:

()

LOL

Even worse: this thread was titled "End of the Bashar al-Assad Regime is in Sight"... back in January. :P

Any particular reason why the two of you are acting like jackasses?  Having a bad day, perhaps?  :P

Yes, I was overly optimistic regarding the demise of Bashar al-Assad's regime -but it looked justified at the time.  

Give it a rest.  

Sorry, not to pick on you personally. I just thought at the time that such "optimism" was ridiculous (especially after we witnessed how long the Libyan fiasco took) and could be used for comic effect at a later date. Three months seems to be an adequate amount of time for my vindication.

Oh, I'm really sorry. As SPC's, my post was absolutely not meant to pick on you.

a little good news Top Hezbollah operative in Syria killed (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4287504,00.html)

Great

A mortar attack from Syria killed 5 Turks, Turkey has responded by bombing Syria. This could be a big turning point in the war.

Turkish parliament authorizes the PM to order military action against Syria: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19830928

I guess Turkey has their Tonkin/Gleiwitz incident?

Turkey actually had pretty friendly relations with Syria until all this started in 2011, so there's no reason for them to provoke and/or fabricate incidents. They're legitimately pissed about what Assad is doing.

Turkish PM says he does not want war with Syria (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1229646/1/.html)

And that's why they have stirred the hornet's nest by giving the rebels assistance (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-syria-crisis-centre-idUSBRE86Q0JM20120727) and flying their planes over Syrian airspace (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9350778/Turkish-plane-may-have-been-in-Syrian-airspace-when-shot-down-says-Turkish-president-Abdullah-Gul.html)?

Heeding concerns from the White House, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Muslim countries in the region are scaling back aid from the Syrian rebels -particularly as it pertains to heavy weaponry- out of fear such weapons could end up in the hands of Sunni extremists -like Al Qaeda (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/world/arab-allies-curb-aid-to-syria-rebels-cite-us-fear-656555/).  

Why is it we are happy to sit back while revolutions unseat pro-American dictatorships in the Middle East, but when it comes to Iran (circa 2009) and Syria (today) we suddenly get petrified of unintended consequences the moment it looks like those regimes we have long regarded as enemies could be on the precipice?  

Is this (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/11/us-arms-deal-with-bahrain-as-crackdown-continues/) is sitting back, I would like to know what you consider to be an appropriate response? Something more like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956)?

Fear of unintended consequences of the overthrow of "hostile" regimes (which previously (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war) were in the category of pro-American (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-us-ally-human-rights) dictatorships (http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/U-S-Libya-normalize-relationship-Analysts-say-2518523.php)) is justified, given (http://www.npr.org/2010/12/07/131884473/Afghanistan-After-The-Soviet-Withdrawal) previous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq_(2003%E2%80%932011)) experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_Libyan_civil_war).

Romney seems to be of the same sentiment (http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019181472_apusromney.html):

Ah, yes, because funding Islamic militants in a proxy war against a strategic opponent has *never* had unintended consequences. ::) Are US politicians *that* myopic or are they taking American voters as idiots?

(I'm going to take sh**t for this one)

Let me start by saying I DO NOT ADVOCATE THIS POSITION, but, playing devil's advocate here, Afghanistan did, it can be argued, go a long way towards hastening the Soviet Union's financial collapse.  Iran's economy is in the toilet.

Alright, I'll jump in so you don't have to. Though I don't actually believe Afghanistan was a huge, or even a significant factor in the economic woes of the Soviet Union.

Even in retrospect, supporting the Mujahedin was the correct choice. The vast majority of the Muhajedin groups we supported do not engage in violent activities against the United States. The Taliban was only one of many factions. A faction that is often at violent odds with the other factions that comprised the vast majority of the Mujahedin. And Al-Qaeda was really a non-player in the anti-Soviet resistance.

And about aid flowing to some people who might become future enemies...well, I don't hear anyone complaining about Lend-Lease.

No clue about the Syria rebel arms thing though. This area of the world has never been my area of expertise and the situation on the ground changes too often and is too poorly understood for me to really direct US policy or anything ridiculous. It's something very difficult from already well-understood history (eg. the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan)

I see Romney is studying the effective winning strategies of Charles Hughes, Wendell Willkie, and Barry Goldwater. Unfortunately for us, the election had no bearing on the outcome in those scenarios, and that trend will likely continue in this election.


How were American interests served by the aid to the Mujahideen? Moreover, how was the issue of who controlled Afghanistan important to American interests?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzziEcWgb5M

This helpful FSA member gives you a step-by-step tutorial on how to shoot down a plane.  It's well worth the minute.

I love how "Allah Akbar" can apparently also mean "Holy s**t I'm a f**king badass!"

I like how "Complete Vice Presidential Debate" is a related video on the sidebar.

Blast tears through central Beirut (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4294374,00.html)And guess who the pro-Syrian/Iranian peeps in Lebanon blame?  DA JOOS! (http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=448122) of course.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon...



http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/10/22/protesters-continue-calls-for-lebanese-pm-to-resign/ (http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/10/22/protesters-continue-calls-for-lebanese-pm-to-resign/)

Syrian opposition groups finally reach a unity deal (http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019659507_apmlsyriaopposition.html). 

They have footage too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-us)

Exactly what I thought. And the Kurds are equally opposed to Assad and the rebels, putting the Erdogan in an uncomfortable spot.

What do people think of Israel's involvement into this clusterinks? On the face of it Assad is trying to provoke an Israeli reaction to rally fence-sitters towards him, but it's so incredibly complicated. Aside from the internal sectarian factors there are now at least five foreign players in a civil war, each with disparate interests (Russia, Iran, Turkey+Gulf Arab states, US/UK/France, Israel).

I don't see what Israel hopes to accomplish by taking out Assad. Are they betting that the pros of weakening Hezbollah's ally and Iran's "route to the sea" (lol) outweigh the potential cons of having Muslim extremists across the Golan Heights border? Perhaps the rightists hope that drawing the United States in will be the back-door to war with Iran?

Who says Israel *wants* to take Assad out? In public Assad has used da Joos to rally Syrians (and to justify the 50 year long State of Emergency), but in private he was content with the status quo. Seems like both Assad and Netanyahu waited until Obama was reelected to begin trading shots.

Part of me suspects Israel, the west, Turkey, and the Sunni Gulf Arab states are making a tacit deal to prevent the rise of an anti-western, , and actively anti-Israeli regime in Syria. There are simply no clear battle lines.

That's why I found it so baffling. The current regime is the best the Israeli's can realistically hope for.


Even that premise clearly presupposes that all of those states view regime change as a desirable outcome. Really, the only rational beneficiaries of those would be the Saudis since they get to infect another country with their Wahhabist nonsense.

The Turks are clearly peeved with Assad as well and want regime change. Unlike Israel and the Saudis, I don't think they have some sort of broader geopolitical motive; the Turks are just not interested in the broader power struggles in the Middle East except insofar as they want both Iran and the Saudis to leave them alone. They're more motivated by (1) genuine humanitarian/democratic concerns and (2) making sure the Kurds don't get uppity (which doesn't really have to do with supporting one side or the other but does encourage intervention).

One of the most interesting possible scenarios would be if Assad takes his attempts to provoke Israel too far, and Israel decides to invade in support of the Syrian opposition. What would the Arab world think?

The Israeli official statement didn't treat it as a provocation, they said something along the lines that we understand it was an accident and that's why we fired a warning shot.

I think Erdogan knows he's gone too far in turning against Assad so dramatically. Back then he gambled that supporting Syrian rebels would further increase Turkey's prestige among Arabs. The jury is out on that one, but at what cost? Assad has since made provocations against Turkey and is apparently deliberately allowing Kurdish rebels to carve out a statelet. Syria has become a power struggle involving all the powers of the Middle East, and the West, and Russia. It's too late for Erdogan to back down, but it's only rational for him to play a geopolitical game.

Israel won't openly support any particular side, since that's obviously the kiss of death. Maybe they'll launch airstrikes against a few weapons depot if push really comes to shove. Or maybe they'll not-so-secretly support a minority group like in Lebanon in the 80s.

Obviously. At the same time, they said something to the effect of "but, if you hit a school with a missile, you're done". The question is whether Assad takes them up on the challenge.

(As far as Israeli support being the kiss of death... Not so convinced. The rebels have the sole support of the Sunni establishment and Arab popular sentiment at this point. It's very hard to see them deciding Assad is better just because Israel joins the rebels, though they would have mixed feelings about Israel's intervention, of course. OTOH, it might be a significant place for Israel to temporarily mend fences with many Sunnis while pursuing its feud with Iran. Just a thought.)

Methinks Assad is merely testing Israel's response, and Israel has no choice but to make a small retaliation.

You underestimate the amount of hatred ordinary Arabs hold for Israel. Many rank-and-file rebels are Islamists who have chafed under Assad's crackdowns (see Hamah in 1982) and accuse Assad of being too soft on Israel. Meanwhile Assad's propaganda accuses the rebels of being supported by Zionists. Neither are true of course, but Israel openly supporting the rebels ain't gonna happen.

Or maybe Israel will openly support the rebels to turn the Islamists and foreign Jihadis against the rebel leadership, enabling Assad to claw his way back to control. But that's entering cloud cuckoo land.

Good news!

Hollande just held a big press conference on its general politics.

During this he said that France officially recognized the new Syrian National Coalition as the only legitimate representative of the country, as if it was the new official govt of the country then.

He then said that now that this step has been reached, the question of delivering weapons to rebels can be asked again.

Which would mean that rebels would have at least some French ground-air missiles in their hands in, I think, at worst more or less one month, which is when the next summit of the Friends of Syria will be held, which could be the occasion to take an official decision coordinated with eventual other countries.

That's the first Western country to take this decision, if it does like for Libya then UK would follow in the next minutes, and the US tomorrow. ;D

That might become an as important turn than what happened on the 17th of March 2011 for Libya. Which wouldn't mean that the end of war would necessarily be coming soon, but that'd become a serious help, if only for the Syrian sky.

Yay! Vive la France!

So, far less hurry than for Libya to help Syria, once again...

I heard nothing from UK, and the Nobel Peace Prize 2008 didn't make sound his 1st news conference of his new mandate as positively sounding than the French one by refusing to recognize the new SNC like the new official authority of Syria, and also continues to refuse to deliver weapons, speaking about the risk that it falls in bad hands. Maybe he was speaking of the 1000-2000 Jihadists that are currently 'enjoying' the fact that nobody is helping Syrian rebels against Assad forces to play a more and more visible role in this conflict, helped by journalists who enjoy to air the black flags waving all over Syria, and all of this even if that's 1.000-2.000 out of how many? About 60.000 rebel forces at least, yeah, there is a clear Jihadist risk in Syria...

But whatever, thankfully there is always France to keep the flag up, this morning Fabius announced on a big radio that he gonna asked EU to lift the embargo on defensive weapons for Syria. If only to protect the 'free territories'.

After all, recognizing the new SNC as the new authority is also recognizing Assad regime as an occupying force in Syria. I like this paradigm.

On the ground Assad regime is de facto losing all authorities then in some places, since Turkey had said they would accept about 100.000 refugees on their territory, it reached 120.000 now, and people continue to come. Then Turkey is only accepted those who are in very bad shape, and is letting the other ones on the other side of the border, making humanitarian camps within Syria, and while Assad forces can still pretend they bomb some freed cities against terrorists, I'd be quite surprised they dare bombing a humanitarian camp, which makes of them some kinda definitely freed areas of Syria. Problem in those places though being that humanitarian conditions can be pretty bad.

Speaking about Turkey, they became the 8th country after France and the 6 countries of the GCC to officially recognize the new SNC as the new authority. But apparently France remains the only to make official steps to deliver weapons. Qatar would quickly follow I guess.

Also, François Hollande will officially receive Abou Qhatyb, the president of the new SNC in Paris on Saturday. Hmm, when you come to think about it UK moved after the Libyans came in Paris too, and Americans after France really showed they were willing to do something, then see you this week-end?

Whatever what those other powers can do as long as there is at least a few countries to help anyhow, because, the more you let Syrians alone, outside of the 'side effect' that the more you add to the today's figure of 39.000 dead people, the more you help the bunch of Jihadists that are in Syria and overall the more you give power to a possibly totally military authority in Syria in the future if there is nothing to balance the Free Syrian Army.

The new SNC seems to be an actual chance to not let Syria fall in some totally military hands now and in the future and to also have more chances to have a control on some weapons, and might be the last possible way to say to Syrians that they are not totally abandoned by the Human Community, because otherwise, if they succeed to freed themselves after...what? 100.000? 200.000? More?...dead people with everybody knowing, watching, having the means to help but doing nothing, do you just imagine how the ambiance would be...cold? And to what we would look like...

But thankfully there is France!


It would be good the US sometimes remember about their origins...

The rebels are gaining ground:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/21/gunning_for_damascus

Good if so.

Meanwhile it's still really laborious in the camp of those who could help...

At first it was amusing, to one more time, see UK beginning to move itself to recognize the new opposition a few hours after Fabius officially spoke about weapons, but then it took them several days to finally laboriously officially recognize the only Syrian representation, becoming the 9th country to do that, but in the end refused to deliver weapons (kudos for the coherence...).

And so far I didn't hear about new countries doing it...

And apparently EU still didn't give an answer to Fabius request to lift EU blockade on weapons...

In between France took a new initiative though, when Hollande received the chief of the new opposition Moaz al-Khatib (sorry for the way I wrote his name last time). And then they created the 1st embassy of the new Syrian representation, in Paris. The ambassador has an interesting profile, he looks about 50 years old, and overall comes from a big Alawit family of Lataquiah, he says most of the coming work of the new SNC will be to seek for the biggest international recognition they can, and to unite the FSA notably in order to have the best possible control on weapons. He seems to be rather dynamic and constructive.

Today, Qatar also proposed to NSC to have an embassy in Doha.

Hopefully they won't have to wait more than the next gathering of the Friends of Syria, in about 2 weeks, so have some concrete help...

Ah well, not sure if that can be much helpful, but lately US and France have given a positive response to Turkey request to put NATO Patriot missiles on its border.

Here's more detail on the rebel gains:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8AJ1FK20121122

Let's hope this is a real turning point in the fight and not another "end of the Assad regime in sight" moment.

I think Assad is toast in the long run, but I don't read these gains as meaning that the regime's collapse is imminent.  There's still a long way to go.  And even once Assad is dislodged from Damascus (whenever that may be), I'm not optimistic about the fighting ending anytime soon after that.  Since there's a much stronger sectarian character to this war than there was in the Libyan civil war, it seems likely that the Sunnis and Alawites would keep fighting each other for many years to come, a la Iraq in the mid/late-2000s.

Where's Petreus when we need him? :P

I've been analyzing this a bit and I agree with Mr. Morden. The regime is toast in the long run because as time passes, it is losing material and support faster than it can replenish them, while the rebels are slowly but steadily gaining strength. At some point the balance will tip over from the regime's side to the rebels.

In many ways, there are similarities to the Chinese civil war. The regime has much stronger conventional superiority, but it can't use this superiority to finally crush the rebels. The rebels have much more popular support, particularly among the peasants in the countryside, whereas the regime can only effectively control the cities. Hence the unpopular regime will be trapped in urban "islands" that can be cut off and eventually attacked and snuffed out one by one by the rebels, just as in the Chinese civil war. Also, just as in the Chinese civil war, the rebels' strength grows day by day through defections, and capturing the regimes' weapons. Ironically, at some point I believe that all of the artillery and armor Assad possess makes it more likely that he will not survive, because this weaponry can be used against him. If only small arms existed in Syria, then Assad would be able to keep up stalemate indefinitely.

If Assad has 50 helicopters and 100 warplanes, if he loses 1 helicopter and 2 warplanes a week, after a year he has no air force any more. I do not believe the Russians are going to ship him any more jets or helicopters because they Russians are starting to realize he cannot pay for them. Finally, it appears that Jordan has signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia, whereas the latter has agreed to intervene in Jordan in the event of an uprising there, in return Jordan allows Saudi weapons to pass through to the rebels.

The regime's tactical superiority is also a strategic disadvantage, because when their mortars and bombs fall on civilian areas, or their troops commit atrocities (which they will disproportionately do simply as a consequence of their military superiority) it only serves to further alienate the local population. Since, for instance, low-flying aircraft can be shot down with small arms, the regime's jets have to fly higher on bombing runs to take advantage of the rebels' lack of anti-aircraft, but this decreases their accuracy and effectiveness. Hence, while the regime needs to fight this war politically as well as militarily, but when it tries to leverage its military advantage it comes at a political cost.

It is losing the war politically because the peasants and migrant poor know that the regime no longer has the economic means to buy them off. The regime also has to pay its troops, and it has to be careful about how it deploys its Sunni troops. The regime's most valuable supporters were the urban Sunni upper class/business class, but because those that remain in Syria are going to be the top targets of both sides, including kidnappings, most of them have either smartly left the country or been neutralized.

When Assad falls, I doubt it'll be the end of the fighting. The Kurds and the Sunnis will start fighting, or the radical Islamist and non-radical Islamists will start fighting. What's left of the Alawites will be in the mix, too.

The longer this goes on, the better for the radical Islamists, Al Qaeda, etc.

One of the biggest risks after Assad falls is a genocide of the Alawites.

Are you making an argument for NATO intervention here?   

No, I'm just saying what I think is true. For one thing, there's no support in the West to bear the costs of such an intervention. Secondly, if NATO intervenes and the victors do commit some atrocities or turn out not to be sweet candy, the West could end up looking complicit.

There's also some parallels to the Lebanese civil war.

Also, Beet, how significant would it be for the region if Bashar al-Assad's regime were to crumble?  And would it push Iran to be genuinely cooperative with the United States with regard to its nuclear weapons facilities, now that they would be deprived of their only ally in the region? 

Doubtful, but it would definitely be a strategic coup for Saudi Arabia and potentially the US and Israel.

Current map of control: red is rebel, green is government, blue is disputed:

()

The rebels have secured basically all of Syria north of Aleppo, but are having a hell of a time pushing further south.

It's funny that Iran's only ally in the region is ran by a heretical sect that would be relentlessly persecuted in Iran if they existed in any large number.

The Alawites have also become my least favorite branch of Islam (assuming you even consider them Muslims at all of course) due to their staunch support of Assad.

Your propensity to judge religious communities as single blocs is pathetic.

Obviously not every single Alawite does. But the leaders and "community" in general do. Look what happens to Alawites that stand against Assad: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world/middleeast/samar-yazbek-branded-betrayer-for-embracing-syria-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

Also I've read that of all the military and government officials that have deserted Assad, not a single one is Alawite.

Only know them from Turkey, there its a very sympathetic, antiauthoritarian and liberal version of Islam with no imams, layman participation in services presided over by laymen prayerleaders which can also be women.
In Syria they simply don't have any choice but to support the regime. The threat from regime sympathisers and the risk of getting massacred if Assad loses is simply too big.

Latest quite hot news:

This morning lot of Revolutionary Committees announced that most places where rebellion have strong were totally cut of communications, Internet and cells, notably Damas. They said they ffeared a regime was preparing something nasty.

Very short time ago, France24 just announced that for the 1st time since the beginning of the conflict, Internet and cell networks are now being cut in the country as a whole.

And right now, there is a breaking saying that a major offensive of the army took place on Damas' airport road.

Maybe they didn't enjoy to see the use of the ground-air missiles (the French ones??), and maybe they also wanted to enjoy the fact that all cams are on New-York and Ramallah today.

Yeah, the new ambassador of Syria, belonging to a big Alawite family of Lattaquiah might be a fake one...

And I haven't watched the composition of the new NSC closely, but if they have an Alawite ambassador, they might have a further Alawite representation.

Not to speak about this:


...indeed.


In the Anglo world you mean?

http://www.sondages-en-france.fr/sondages/Actualit%C3%A9/Politique%20%C3%A9trang%C3%A8re

While the French, who have the biggest military means in the West outside of the US, and who can play a role to move some other EU countries to constitute a force wouldn't be too much annoyed by Russia position here, in term of popular opinion, if you believe polls, French regularly supported helping the opposition, till that poll of the 12/08/2012, which happened when it really turned into a total war there, that gave 51% supporting a French intervention.

'The West', belongs to the 1990s geopolitically, where Mitterand saw nothing on the 1st instant of the 1990s, and who had a rather odd positioning toward Balkanic wars, while 1989 has been US/'The West' victory over USSR/'The-East', and then the leaders against the nasty Serbs, till Bill Clinton becoming a total hero in Kosovo.

France began to woke up in 1995 with Chirac, slowly, and the US who peaked with Kosovo as being the total geopolitical leader and kept this image till 2001. Somalia 1993 was a 1st bad sign though.

Just for a little digression about 'The West'. There is not 'The West' in Palestine today for the most recent example...

About this notion of 'genocide'.

This belongs to XXth century imo, which for our sake we have left.

During a long time, till this August, this has mainly been a protest, non-violent, non anti-Alawites, it was exactly in line with the other Arab Revolutions, a call for Freedom and Justice of which the main the point is the ousting of their dictatorship, and in a 1st time of the 1st big symbol of it, the dictator and his family (since both are often, always?, associated in Arab dictatorships), or in wider sense to his 'clan', and this not in the cultural sense of the word so far, but in the very concrete sense, all the guys at the top of regime screwing the country for their sake.

Outside of the fact that actual genocides, which isn't a slight word, would more and more belong to the past, and the death of all people who have been taken into that might have at least been useful to this.

And outside of the fact that Arab Revolutions belong to a positive dynamic overall.

You can also add that in between there's been an International Justice being set, that several persons have been condemned for stuffs like that, that some are regularly caught, and then a lot of guys around the world pay far more attention before doing nasty stuffs, and anyways it made this less easy to them. But it's not as if the US were aware about all of this...

And you can also the fact that media are everywhere now. In 1980 Assad father massacred 20.000 people, no images, nothing, just some memories of some people in Hama.

Now, will it be wonderful after the fall of the regime?

Indeed not.

Has it been in Libya? No.
Has it been in France after Libération in 1945? No.

Outside of the war which is going on since this summer, given the atrocities committed against Syrian protesters during the months of protests by regime official and maybe overall unofficial forces against civilian protesters, while it must be condemned, you shouldn't be surprised at all to see indeed some nasty retaliations. That could be still more messy precisely due to the fact that the regime used a lot some civilian militias to practice atrocities. But so it goes in this case as it can go anywhere, there doesn't need an ethnic factor for it to happen, the word genocide has a sense, and I think the automatic confessional/ethnic fights in Arab societies are overall a Western intellectual construction based on lazy historical schemes, of which the Lebanese War might have been the last blow. In Iraq, it isn't Shiah vs. Sunnis, it's some Shiah militias vs. Al Qaeda. And lately it became Al Qaeda vs. Shiah populations. Civilian populations are totally taken in hostage there by this, what a pity, and kudos to the US to making them regret Saddam, because that's what you can often hear there when journalists do reports and documentaries...

Speaking about genocide should have some sense.

(...oho...the original post was...once again longer than 11.000 characters, kudos if you're still reading ;D...to be continued right bellow then...)

International Justice, knowledge of other cultures, what a pity that the biggest diplomatic and military power became the most cut of the rest of the World...

Crazy how the US would still be stuck in the XXth century paradigm, both diplomatically and militarily, and even in the WW2 paradigm militarily, both in term of strategy and equipment (what the hell do you wanna do with all your aircraft-carriers? destroy China by carpet bombing?) and Obama's influence on that is shy so far, and the fact that it wouldn't be easy at all for him to change it would show how it is deeply seeded in the US geopolitical schemes.

But hey, with Romney we were in WW1, so I guess being stuck in WW2 remains a progress...

Gosh, I always reach the same conclusion:

Thankfully France's here!

And in a less hexagonal conclusions:

Thankfully France could one day brings it's diplomatic power, biggest diplomatic power since...Louis XIII at least till 1918, and that's notably this way the  French language became very international, and it remains the biggest network of embassies around the world after the US, and not very far iirc, it has its UN seat, and its military power, biggest Western army after the US, independent on all equipments, or being allied with other EU countries for the few non-independent ones (some helicopters, non fighting jets, satellites for what I remember) given it apparently has the 3rd military industry in the world (lol, even Russians buy big boats to us...), its nuke button, all of this could be a good start to build a European Defense!

A biggest defense and a biggest diplomacy which could be quite useful in cases like Syria maybe then, and anyhow to have a sane strong force around the world, what the UN isn't able to be, what the US can't be and could less and less be.

Because, unlike the US, the European countries have deeply enough shrunk geopolitical imperialism, may the price that populations taken in the colonial empires paid has at least been useful to this (even France is seriously shrinking its relationship to Françafrique so it's safe!).

Thankfully we're leaving an epoch where geopolitical schemes are deeply changing, it's all opened!

Ah, and, about Al Qaeda, yeah, the most it lasts, the most it helps AQ guys. But one more time, it's about 2.000 guys (for the most pessimistic observers), and a lot foreigners are in it, out of 20 millions of Syrians, and at least 60.000 rebel forces. The danger of Al Qaeda is...relative there.

The biggest danger about them would be they join AQ Iraq once the regime is fallen, in order to 'continue the Jihad!', and so they participate to destabilize Iraq.

That being said, the move behind all of this is a decreasing of Iran in the region.

1st in Syria, I don't need to develop I think.

2nd in Lebanon, Hezbollah would become more and more isolated, technically and politically.

3rd in Iraq, if the fall of Assad regime effectively leads to a destabilization of Iraq, 'lol', come to think about it, both Assad clan/regime elites and AQ fighters could flee to the Iraqi Shiah administration once the regime falls, because Tehran might not be fond to welcome some of the most murderous people in human history on their ground given how it could be inflammable for the Iranian youth...

So it might lead to a totally f**ked up situation in Iraq.

This while Qatar is enlarging is 'Califate', succeeded to already take Gaza, which the brilliant Israeli intervention might have still helped, because, while Al Qassam brigades are showing this...


...in Gaza streets, in the end of the day, Israel succeeds to give a big geopolitical importance to Morsi, who is funded by Qatar, and by having destroyed all those infrastructures it will makes Qatari funds still more welcome in Gaza. Kudos Israel, always brilliant, and the US always here to brilliantly obey to them.

Qatar who is then becoming the 1st geopolitical power of the Peninsula, and even of the Gulf diplomatically, which makes KSA influence to be more and more marginal.

A major crisis in Iraq that'd clearly be Shiahs vs Sunnis could incite KSA to take back a lead, especially since Sunnis could appear as a persecuted minority, still more especially when you consider the growing political crisis in Kuwait, which is becoming the biggest political crisis there with Bahrain, and we know how KSA handled Bahrain...



...which can be seen as one more fail of Iran in the region, since they call for defending Shiahs all over the world, to which you could add the Saudi repressions of Shiahs in KSA, Iran didn't move here either, geopolitically it's one more fail for them...

And this while KSA is slowly going to softer and softer social policies and more and more home public spendings since to appease the possibilities of protests since the beginning of Arab Revolutions, some less radical policies coupled to this decrease of geopolitical influence in the Arab world, while still having this status of 'US puppet' could give still more strength and fuel to extremists in this country, who are always present if you believe observers.

You could also had the fact that protests in Jordan are being bigger and bigger and clearly led by Jordanian MBs, which would be of the same shade than Egyptian ones, and who could also be part of the rising 'Qatar Caliphate'...

So many things that makes that KSA really is at a crossroad and that might not accept to be continued to be marginalized, and thus that could try to take benefit of this loss of the Iranian influence all over the region to push further its advantage, and Iraq might eventually become the spot of this.

So, in short, all of this goes toward far and far less Iran all over. Which also confirms the way I use to see Iran as being in the last years of USSR...

And which also are so many reasons not to strike Iran!

Doing it could bring totally hazardous crazy consequences...

And thankfully the 2008 peace Nobel Prize had firm enough words going in this sense here...




(...France, Europe, US, the whole Middle-East, wow seems I went a bit beyond Syria here...

...read everything?? Kudos if so! ;D...)



Not other news of what's going on in Damas...

Syria has completely disconnected from the internet. Things are about to get much, much worse.

Assad must know how vulnerable he is. Mubarak and Gadhafi both cut off the Internet early on, actually surprised Assad took this long. Definitely smells like weakness.

So how much longer does everyone think the Assad regime can stay in power?

The United States is moving towards officially recognizing the Syrian opposition as the legitimate government in the country (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ap-sources-us-preparing-to-upgrade-recognition-of-syrias-opposition-offer-greater-support/2012/11/29/8baafd70-3a47-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_story.html).  

As long as he did the last time you asked the question. Absent direct foreign intervention I suspect he'll survive 2013.

Syrian army weakening as rebels make gains (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-army-weakening-as-rebels-make-gains/2012/12/04/80b1d1c6-3e59-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html?hpid=z1)

By Joby Warrick and Babak Dehghanpisheh,
Updated: Tuesday, December 4, 8:19 PM

After nearly two years of fighting, Syria’s vaunted war machine is showing serious cracks as emboldened rebels snap up more bases and airfields and force army units to retrench behind defensive lines in major cities, Western officials and military analysts say.

Bolstered by a steady flow of arms from foreign backers, opposition forces have scored a series of tactical victories in the Damascus suburbs in recent days and are advancing steadily toward the city’s airport, adding to what some analysts view as a sense of momentum that has been building since late summer.

Powerful antitank and antiaircraft weapons have helped level what was once a lopsided contest, the officials say, so much so that army commanders have been unable or unwilling to challenge rebel assaults on large military bases on the capital’s outskirts.

“The regime isn’t intervening to defend its positions,” said Jeffrey White, a former Middle East military analyst with the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency. “And when it does try to counterattack, it often fails.”

The rebel should start publicly gunning down army officers outside of battle again and see how quickly they start deserting. Also what's the Syrian equivalent of West Point? That'd make a nice bombing target...

The top military leadership are Alawite and they know they won't fare well under any circumstances. Might as well go down fighting. It really isn't possible to separate the "good guys" from the "bad guys".

One could defect and then renounce their past "Alawite heresy" and claim to have converted to standard Sunni Islam now.

I feel like the red avatars around here could benefit from reading this (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/04/beware-the-anti-anti-war-left/)

There's hordes of logical fallacies in that article, but I'll give the author credit for putting forward a point that consists of more than:

1-OMG THIS IS JUST LIKE IRAQ/VIETNAM!
2-NO TO IMPERIALISM!
3-Any intervention would provide benefit to US/European businesses, therefore it's not truly humanitarian, therefore Gaddafi/Assad is the better guy.
4-Right wing talking points about the opposition all being al Qaeda terrorists.

Because that type of junk is literally all I've seen on DU whenever anyone criticizes an Obama military intervention like in Libya or the sending military advisors to Uganda. (It's a minority of course, but too vocal of one.) In hindsight it makes me realize that lots of anti-Iraq War types relied on really stupid bumper sticker slogans instead of real arguments, but since I was on the same side as them and saw the pro-war side as far worse I didn't even notice it/care.

I wonder if any of the left-wingers putting forth that junk realize what the hell they're doing when they say it.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15706380-syria-loads-chemical-weapons-into-bombs-military-awaits-assads-order?lite&google_editors_picks=true

Hmm, this is not good ...

If this is not just a tactic to scare the rebels and they are actually using it, the US and others should probably intervene there based on a UN mandate and wipe out the Assad regime.

And this is coming from a left-winger like me, but the consequences of using these weapons would probably justify a mission to get rid of the regime in a hopefully quick way.

But the situation there and what might happen with the chemical bombs if the allied forces are invading are just ... nuts.

What invading forces? Just wipe out the Syrian Air Force (The entire Libyan Air Force was basically annihilated in two days) and then hit all the chemical weapons delivery systems with a bunch of cruise missiles.

This. Basically, Assad using his WMDs would pretty much justify what we did to Ghadaffi. Basically our goal won't be regime change, but simply to prevent genocide.

The main problem is, any attack on Assad's WMD's is likely to release them, not simply destroy them.  It's why it is essentially impossible for a pre-emptive strike to be done, since we would in effect be releasing chemical agents that would undoubtedly affect nearby civilian areas.  Indeed, if Assad is smart, he likely has chosen to mix those chemicals near civilian areas.

What if he starts to release? Would we then be absolved of that responsibility of causing them to be released and perhaps some of the collateral damages of our actions?

That's why he's not going to release. The chemical weapons are a dead man's switch.

Bashar has said he was born in Syria, lived all his life in Syria, and will die in Syria. Take that how you want.

Well, Assad could attempt a genocide against non-Allawites if he knows hes not going to be more than another month or two in order to position his sect to have more power in the future of Syria. Then again, the powers might be might partitition Syria between Allawites, Kurds, Sunni Arabs and perhaps even Arab Christians.

Uh, what? Alawites are only 10% of Syria's 22 million population. Even a Hitler-like madman can't change that fact in two months.

The most rational thing for him to do is to gather all his most loyal army officers and send them to the Alawite coastal strip, order them to cleanse out non-Alawites and other undesirables from the mountainous strip, and then fly a helicopter to pick him up from Damascus at midnight. Then, plead for international peacekeepers to defend the Alawites from what will definitely be desires for revenge. Bonus, continue allowing Russia access to the Port of Tartus in exchange for Russia continuing to support the remnants of Assad-controlled Syria. The last part would be like the US supporting the last remnant of KMT-controlled China.

That actually makes sense instead of killing 300,000 people and perhaps chasing out anouther 1,000,000 in 2 months of sustained gassing in order to become a somewhat larger of a minority. That would probably create a Rwandan-style  repraisal.  This way, Assad would still have to commit a somewhat smaller of a genocide but he could be the Taiwan of post Cold-War dictators of a small country of about 2 million people. But this gets us back to the main point. Having a genocide at the next door of the western world at this magnitude is simply unacceptable and worse creates a very slippery slope towards making genocide a tolerated fact of life.  This is why we need to start an air campaign over Syria if any are released and if people are still dying after a week, we really should put troops on the ground if we can at least NATO on board....though maybe Assad already knows this and he is just bluffing and the course of the war will continue on its current trajectory of Assad losing sometime next year or Syria becoming the next Sudan for years to come.

See:

()

Curious what the Alawites of Iskenderun think about Turkey's involvement in the Syrian civil war.

Probably they are thankful they were hijacked by Turkey back in 1939 and thus out of most of this mess.

But wouldn't bombing canisters containing poison gas, you know, release them? And if Assad's smart he's located the weapons depots near crowded urban areas to prevent just that from happening.

How about dropping "bombs" that are just spray neutralizing agents into the air?

I'm pretty sure that sort of thing doesn't exist.

When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

How is releasing an antidote anything other than excellent solution to the problem of somebody using chemical weapons on folks?

As London Man pointed out, that might be feasible in a Hollywood blockbuster, but not in real life.

Well, obviously I mean if and when possible. SPC may, I suppose (and hope), have been criticizing whatever thought process led BRTD to think that particular process is feasible, but it's SPC. He may very well have a grave moral opposition to administering antidotes to citizens of other countries in violation of those countries' self-determination for all I know.

Obviously giving Syrians antidotes creates perverse market distortions. Better to force them to find and purchase their own antidotes.

With nerve agents, deploying antidotes is risky.  If you give yourself the antidote because you think you've come in contact with one, but you haven't, then you can potentially kill yourself that way as well.

...that would in fact be a very good reason to have second thoughts about doing as BRTD suggested, were it possible. I stand at least partially corrected. Thank you, Ernest.

I was thinking of a certain Spec Ops level of Call of Duty 3 with that comment there.

I see.

;D

Obama: US now recognizes opposition as ‘legitimate representative’ of Syrian people (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-cancels-trip-to-arab-world-due-to-illness-us-names-syrian-group-a-terrorist-body/2012/12/10/a05e541a-4343-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html?hpid=z2)

By Associated Press, Published: December 10 | Updated: Tuesday, December 11, 6:39 PM

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared Syria’s main opposition group the sole “legitimate representative” of its country’s people Tuesday, deeming the move “a big step” in the international diplomatic efforts to end Syrian President Bashar Assad’s embattled regime.

Obama said the newly formed Syrian Opposition Council “is now inclusive enough” to be granted the elevated status, which paves the way for the greater U.S. support for the organization.

“Obviously, with that recognition comes responsibilities,” Obama said in an interview Tuesday with ABC News. “To make sure that they organize themselves effectively, that they are representative of all the parties, that they commit themselves to a political transition that respects women’s rights and minority rights.”

Recognition of the council as the sole representative of Syria’s diverse population brings the U.S. in line with Britain, France and several of America’s Arab allies, which took the same step shortly after the body was created at a meeting of opposition representatives in Qatar last month.

Now for God's sake, start sending them some weapons instead of keeping doing speeches.

If Assad's using SCUDs he's probably feeling cornered.

I think in all likelihood we are already sending the Syrian rebels weapons and other supplies in secret. Probably via Saudi and other Gulf middle men.

Russia says the rebels might win:

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-syrian-rebels-might-win-car-bomb-111631714.html



NATO says Assad regime on the brink of collapse:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/syria-regime-collapse_n_2292440.html

I hope this isn't another false dawn.  :P

I have an inexplicable soft spot for Asma al-Assad. It's going to be horrible to see her and her children dragged around the streets. Syria's such a shame. Up until this whole thing started I really did think there was a chance at reform and opening up, that Assad could prove to a progressive moderniser, which his background certainly suggested. Now that's all a dead dream, along with thousands of Syrians.

We in the West tend to overestimate how much one man can go in and change an already established regime. I think thats true of both North Korea and Syria. There are already a network of officers, cronies and other stakeholders around the throne that have a vested interest in the status quo and without their support the heir to the family dictatorship can change very little.

I would say that Assad did more that just let the status quo. If he had been that reform-minded, he could have taken advantage of the early stages of the Revolution to force gradual reforms. Instead, he has shown all his determination not to lose an inch of his power.

Giving in after a revolution has begun is a sure way of losing. There is basically only three options in that situation. Defeat the rebels, commit suicide or go into exile.

I am pretty sure that a large part of the population on both sides would have agreed to avoid the bloodshed if a compromise option had been on the table. Instead, Assad thought he could crush the rebellion and acted accordingly.

That's exactly what the leaders in Algeria and Morocco did. It worked okay for them. (Granted, I think we're assuming after protests start but before armed conflict began--you may be taking this to be after armed conflict had already started, in which case I agree.)

As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out, a dictatorial regime is at its absolute weakest and most likely to be overthrown when it is attempting to reform.  Easing restrictions on people makes them more confident and more likely to speak up about the other problems they face, and make demands that the process go faster.  The easiest options are either conceding defeat and going into exile or going maximum hardline like Assad actually did: reform is something of a fool's errand that makes it more, not less, likely for a ruler to end up hanging from a telephone pole.

There is a lot of truth in this idea, but I don't think it's good to generalize too much. Negotiated political reforms might sometimes appease tensions and allow the regime to stabilize for a while (even though it might still eventually fall).

Syria is Russia's closest ally, and Russia is Syria's strongest ally.

We have only gone into DEFCON-3 three times in our history, and once was because the Soviet Union was threatening nuclear war with the United States to defend its ally Syria, back in the '73 Yom Kippur War. (the other two times were 9/11 and the Cuban Missile Crisis)

Syria is also the only country, outside of the former USSR, where Russia still has a military base.

Russia still supports Assad... but admits he's losing, and they're planning evacuations for their citizens.

If Russia says the rebels may win, and is planning like the end might be near... then the end is probably near. Wish we had a timetable though on when "soon" is, but revolutions don't have timetables.

Even if Assad is dislodged from Damascus, which could still be months away, that's hardly "the end".  The war will most likely keep going for years in a different form, as the Sunnis, Alawites, and others keep killing each other.

http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/as-rebels-make-inroads-their-friends-of-syria-are-nervous#ixzz2EnY6j0QI


EDIT: Also, here's an excellent interview with Syria expert Joshua Landis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbG1nPaxgwY

He gives his take on the most likely scenario from about the 14:50 mark until around the 24 minute mark.

Glad to see you attacked me for questioning the reasoning of someone who makes strategic decisions based on a video game.

It was your motivations for questioning his reasoning that struck me as suspect.

What do you mean by my motivation? My immediate motivation of detecting faulty logic or my greater motivation of opposing a knee-jerk response to a complex situation? The thought process seemed to consist of 1) Assad might use chemical weapons, 2) The US drops bombs with relative ease, therefore 2) should be used to solve 1), hence my observation. You seem to have judged my motivations not based on the content of my post, but on your preconceived stereotype of my political philosophy.

I'll admit that I judged your motivations based on your political philosophy (as opposed to BRTD's motivations, which...defy complex analysis, and are profound in their simplicity, shall we say), so I'm sorry about that. I don't, however, think I have a 'preconceived stereotype' of what your political philosophy is, as I've talked with you on this forum a few times and read threads in which you talked with others quite a bit. Is it fair to assume, based on previous discussions and observations of your philosophy and positions, that you would oppose all or most forms of potential American involvement in the situation in Syria (Call of Duty 3-based or otherwise) on noninterventionist grounds? If so, I think my original broadside has merit, although I apologize for jumping the gun.

U.N. mulls sending peacekeepers to Syria

Published: Dec. 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

DAMASCUS, Syria, Dec. 15 (UPI) -- The United Nations is considering sending between 4,000 and 10,000 peacekeeping troops to Syria, a diplomatic official said.

The official said ministers of countries whose service personnel make up the U.N. peacekeeping force met Friday to discuss options for Syria, RIA Novosti reported.

One problem, the diplomatic source said, is the number of peacekeepers in the U.N. force.

"The problem is that the U.N. has no extra resources. The U.N. has a contingent of about 115,000 peacekeepers in various countries, but in order to send [a peacekeeping mission] to Syria, [the United Nations] will have to withdraw them from somewhere," the official, who spoke anonymously, said.

Lakhdar Brahimi, U.N. and Arab League envoy to Syria, said in November a peacekeeping mission was needed in Syria, devastated by a civil conflict that began in March 2011 over protests against President Bashar Assad. The violence between government troops and opposition forces has killed at least 40,000 people, activist groups estimate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/12/15/UN-mulls-sending-peacekeepers-to-Syria/UPI-73981355582681/#ixzz2FACcQE5a

UN Peacekeepers are useless.

Not really.  At times they make very effective hostages.

And their ambulances make excellent troop transports.

Also, many of them kill too quickly for an antidote to be deployed.

Only in such high concentrations that you likely would have been killed by a conventional weapon hitting the same spot.

Russia doesn't appear too eager to serve as host to an exiled Bashar al-Assad and his family:

Russia says it won't host Assad but others welcome (http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019957974_apeurussiasyria.html)

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
Associated Press
Originally published Saturday, December 22, 2012 at 5:23 AM

MOSCOW —

Russia's foreign minister says Moscow would welcome any country's offer of a safe haven to Syrian President Bashar Assad, but underlined that Moscow itself has no intention of giving him shelter if he steps down.

Russia has used its veto right at the U.N. Security Council to protect its old ally from international sanctions, but it has increasingly sought to distance itself from Assad.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters late Friday that countries in the region he wouldn't name publicly had asked Russia to convey their offer of a safe passage to Assad. He said that Russia responded by telling them to go directly to Assad.

"If there is anyone willing to provide him guarantees, they are welcome!" Lavrov told reporters on board a plane returning from Brussels where he attended a Russia-EU summit. "We would be the first to cross ourselves and say: "Thank God, the carnage is over! If it indeed ends the carnage, which is far from certain."
--------------------------------------------------------------

That's quite a contrast to our more hospitable treatment of former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.  

Damn, if I were in the Chinese Politburo I'd be desperately hoping for the US to jump head on to its...fourth Middle Eastern war in a decade, since it would distract Obama's attention from my backyard. Bonus? Syria's sectarianism make Iraq's seem almost like Belgium.

More Joshua Landis on Syria, and why the war could still go on for many years after Assad leaves Damascus and retreats to the Alawite heartland:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/13845?in=07:32&out=12:41v

Yes, and Russia is actually taking the better stance amazingly.

Syrian troops using killer gas bombs, says Syrian Observatory for Human Right

SYRIAN troops have deployed bombs containing a killer gas while fighting rebels in the central city of Homs.

"Activists in Homs say that six rebels died on Sunday night on the Khaldiyeh-Bayada frontline because they inhaled odourless gas and white smoke," said the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which relies on a network of activists, lawyers and doctors to document Syria's raging conflict.

"Gas spread in the area after regime troops threw bombs that gave off white smoke as soon as they hit the walls," said the Observatory, which added the bombs were deployed during street clashes with the rebels.

"Those who inhaled the gas felt nauseous and suffered severe headaches. Some suffered fits," it added.

"These are not chemical weapons, but we do not know whether they are internationally prohibited," Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman said.

"Activists say it is the first time they have recorded these effects," he added. "They are not conventional weapons."

The Observatory called on the International Committee of the Red Cross to urgently send a specialised medical team to Homs, several of whose districts have been besieged by army forces for more than six months.

The Local Co-ordination Committees also reported the use of "bombs containing gases" in Homs.

"These gases lead to muscle relaxation, severe difficulty in breathing and the narrowing of the iris," said the LCC, a grassroots network of peaceful activists.

Amateur video filmed by activists and distributed online by the LCC showed a man laid out on a stretcher struggling to breathe as an unidentified doctor held an oxygen mask over his face.

"It's definitely a poisonous gas, but we don't know what type it is," said a field doctor.

http://www.news.com.au/news/syrian-troops-using-killer-gas-bombs/story-fnehlez2-1226543183488

So they're using chemical weapons already....     

I would wait until these claims are verified. Hope they're not true.

But if it is confirmed, then we must act swiftly, decisively, carefully, and forcefully.

So would anyone be opposed to providing the rebels with masks?

Not me, but if this was a nerve agent, masks wouldn't be an absolute boon.  Nerve agents can be absorbed through the skin, altho they are more effective if they contact the eyes, nose, and/or mouth.

I'm still trying to figure out why our country gets so high and mighty when other countries use chemical or biological weapons, then we turn around and generously use depleted uranium ammunition against whoever gets in our way.

Consult Rudyard Kipling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden).

I thought that the ostensible purpose for any Western intervention was to protect civilians. Even if masks had the protective effect that they must have in Black Ops 2, wouldn't it defeat the purpose of a purportedly humanitarian action if the recipients were the combatants themselves rather than civilians?

Hahaha. Good stuff.

WTF? Our betrayal and treatment of the Shah was the greatest moral and geopolitical travesty of the past fifty years. Carter singlehandedly let him fall.

This is patently false. What would you have us do, invade Persia to prop up the Shah?

This might be the most ridiculous thing anyone's ever said on this forum.

It is pretty bad, but...

Yeah, that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read.

Well, I'm disappointed but not really surprised at the reaction. In a forum where pornography is celebrated as artistic expression and prostitution considered liberating, I should have expected that a regime as modern and progressive as the Shah's would be given so little credit.

Ah, I assume you're all waving your arms at this point. Talking about how Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was a megalomaniac dictator or the like. From the people that exult Hugo Chavez. I suppose dramatic economic growth means very little to you people. Iran had been posting growth rates similar to that of Japan by the 1970s, had the revolution never occurred, it is likely Iran would have ranked within the top ten largest economies in the world by now. The rate of development in imperial Iran was frenetic, six, seven, eight percent per annum. And it wasn't just oil. One of the Shah's major goals was the diversification of the Iranian economy, and the country was experiencing steady, consistent industrialization, with several factories, auto plants, and steel mills opening regularly. And who can forget the infamous "Guess Who's Building Nuclear Power Plants?" ad? The Shah was ready for a post-oil economy, and wanted Iran to become a major economic power, with or without petroleum.

Let's not forget his social policies. Inequality was kept low because of the reforms of the White Revolution, redistributing lands to tenant sharecroppers that had once belonged to the clerics. The dramatic increases in literacy and education. The modernization of the health services of the country, electrification, irrigation, bringing the Green Revolution to Iran. All worthless, I suppose. Then there was his progressive social policies, extending higher education to the masses, allowing local councils. And his policies towards women, in education, in the workplace, in the armed forces. This was a major triumph, and even the revolution could not reverse that. Because Iranian women cannot be forced back into the chador, Iran remains fairly liberal in this regard, when compared to say, Saudi Arabia, but it still became very repressive by any decent standard.

I'm not even going to address apologism for that dictator-in-the-wings, Mosaddegh.

Allowing this state to collapse into what it has become was a moral travesty because it was the Carter Administration who refused to support the Shah in his time of need, allowing the disgusting Khomeini free passage in France instead of detaining him as they should have. The called for wishy-washy, unspecific "reform", emboldening agents of anarchy and protest. They refused to send arms and riot control goods to Iran- so where police would have used tear gas and rubber pellets, they were left with no choice but to use live bullets. By not standing up to the rioters' demands, the Carter Administration encouraged further unrest.

Of course, it is important to realize several in the West were more than willing to see the Shah fall, being afraid of his scheme to have Iran as a major world power, especially in the United Kingdom, where they were still bitter about the loss of "their" oil. Certainly Powell-esque voices of this sort only encouraged the negligent and malfeasant policy towards Iran. The Shah was a strong, reliable ally of the United States, but only to a point, and he always put his country's interests first. That unsettled some people, that the Shah was not some vain potentate willing to sell out his people in order to live in luxury.

It is a geopolitical travesty because, well, it allowed the Imperial State of Iran to become the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is almost unfathomable to conceive what the Middle East would have looked like had the Shah remained in power. No Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. No Iran-Iraq War, or at least, an Iranian floorwipe. No Gulf War. No Iranian backed Hezbollah or Hamas. No 9/11. No Iraq War. No Afghan War... that's only the beginning. Imagine a Middle East dominated by a progressive, pro-Western Iran, instead of a backwards Iran or Saudi Arabia. Just imagine it. In almost no way could any person alive today be worse off had the Shah stayed in power. I'm sure this, as you just said, disgusts you.

Not to suggest I think that the "success" of Shah's economic policies justifies his disgusting regime, Simfan really needs to take this into consideration:
()

The rapid Iranian growth rates weren't miraculous by any means and mirrored those seen around the world. Increasing capital investments in technologies that would yield far higher rates of production leads to rapid gains in standards of living. This rule is uniform and suggests that the rapid worldwide growth that occurred between 1950 and 2000 is due to optimization of easily applicable/currently existing technologies.  Do you support Park Chung-Hee, the PRI and Brazil's military rule simply because they managed to sustain high levels of growth in their respective countries? Seeing as its you, I wouldn't be surprised but my general point is that as long that civil society was maintained, some degree of foreign investment was allowed and basic investments in modern infrastructure were made; rapid growth was inevitable in this era.  

The Solow growth model illustrates this concept of convergence. My basic point is that it isn't remarkable by any means that Iran sustained a high level of growth during the Shah's reign. Then again, you also think that Stiglitz and Krugman are "dangerous" so your understanding of economics must be pretty shallow.

Of course, I've never heard this hypothesis but I'm disinclined to believe it. 1950-2000 was hardly a period of "rapid worldwide growth", one should ask the stagnant Latin American economies, disintegrating African ones, or peaking European ones, or India, or the USSR, it goes on. The only major stories of the period was the expected European recovery and the strong emergence of several Asian economies.

There's no need to belittle my knowledge of economics. Though I'm sure you knew it would be extra-offensive to an economics major. ::)

Of that list, BTW, the only one I'm willing to support is Park Chung-Hee. The rest were incompetents and autocrats.

Simfan's new post may be even worse. I don't know what kind of twisted perspective of reality results in thinking that the Shah was some progressive hero who brought economic growth and equality to the country and saved it from the dictator Mosaddegh, but the fact that he actually believes in this nonsense is more disgusting than a one sentence posting of hyperbole.

I'd rather be free and poor than wealthy yet under the boot of a SAVAK agent.

()

I'm done with this discussion, your mindset is warped.

I actually wrote a paper in undergrad for one of my classes looking at American media portrayals of the Iranian revolution, and Simfan's perspective of the Shah and the revolutionaries is almost verbatim what the Wall Street Journal was printing in the winter of 79-80. The Shah was always portrayed sympathetically: he and his people were serious modernizers who knew how to run an economy; the revolutionaries were all hot-headed Muslim savages, whipped up into a riotous frenzy, who would destroy the Iranian economy. Never mind the fact that the revolution was supported by all strata of society, secular and religious, working and middle class, and never mind that the Shah was a murderous, nasty dictator, who created a society of stark inequality and corruption, robbing Iran of its oil wealth to fund his opulent palaces and have meals flown in from Paris.


If you lived in Iran in the late 1970s you'd probably be under the boot of a SAVAK agent and poor. I don't know where Simfan gets this nonsense that Iran was some prosperous place free of economic inequality.

Ah, the security agency with 200 prisoners? How frightening. And then the one that became the truly frightening SAVAMA under the IRI? How ironic. The truth is the vast majority of instability in Iran was perpetrated either by fundamentalists or communists. The real radical fringe. Hardly your sort. Better to stay in the Imperial centre.

Back on the subject of Syria,
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/2012122614513868810.html

We're not done, Nhoj.


Yes, because that's what they actually were. Of course, it's very easy to get people into revolutionary, fervour, especially when your cleric is telling you to. Many of these "secular" sectors you actually talk about were actually communist. And they did ruin the economy.

Murderous, nasty dictator. You, of course, bring up the festivities associated with the 2500th anniversary of Iranian monarchy. Funny how they always talk about the food, and never the massive new infrastructural projects, or the thirty two hundred schools built to also mark the occasion. Or the iconic Shahyad Tower, but that appeals to the aesthete in me.

And the palaces? A leader isn't allowed to build a new residence or two in a 40-odd year reign? The hypocrisy is killing me.

True; merely suspending disbelief to make a point.


I'd be very interested in hearing your source for 200 prisoners. My numbers put it at "thousands" (Time, FAS). SAVAK was SAVAMA: they took over the same apparatus, and retained much of the personnel. And are you suggesting I'm a centrist now? And fearmongering of Tudeh. How Eisenhowerian.

The Shah was progressive, and the advances made were heroic, so, yes, he was a "progressive hero".

Does tear gas have that sort of effect?

Assad is going to die fighting:

Syria’s Assad is defiant in rare speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrias-assad-is-defiant-in-rare-speech/2013/01/06/00f4f67a-5803-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html?hpid=z2)

By Liz Sly, Updated: Sunday, January 6, 8:58 PM

BEIRUT — In a rare public appearance Sunday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dashed hopes that a negotiated settlement to the nation’s civil war would be feasible anytime soon, delivering a speech in which he offered no hint that he is prepared to surrender power, negotiate with his opponents or halt his crackdown on armed rebels.
(...)
Appearing weary but defiant as he addressed cheering supporters at the Opera House in central Damascus, the president sketched a plan for what he called a period of “transition,” in which a new government would be formed, a national pact would be drafted and a referendum would be held.

Assad’s proposals were vague, however, and made no mention of a mechanism under which he would surrender any of his powers, let alone step aside, as the opposition and most international governments have called for. He put the onus of responsibility for the plan on Western powers, which he said must end their support for the opposition before the implementation of a cease-fire and the convening of a national conference to chart reforms.

In his first public speech since June, Assad also made clear that his priority is to crush by force the nearly two-year-long uprising against his rule, labeling his opponents “terrorists” and “criminals.”

That's been clear ever since the Soviets Russians said last year that they weren't going to take him in if he decided to flee.  He has no other choice now.  If he stops fighting, he's dead.

There are some countries that have offered him asylum... but yeah, he's not going to take it. He's a madman on a killing spree.

Perhaps the Russians view Assad as a tool they can use to safely troll the west as long as he genuinely fears for his life. Fly/ship him some ex-Soviet hardware, accuse the west of supporting Islamic terrorists, frustrate US attempts to leave the Middle East, and cause trouble for key US allies Israel and Turkey. The only cost is some hot air from Washington.

I wonder if it really came down to it Russia would arrange for Belarus to take Assad in if he falls? Belarus doesn't have really anything to loose by taking him in, although it's clear that the Russians are already jockeying not to alienate the new Syria more then they need to.

You can play a game of this here (http://gamethenews.net/index.php/endgame-syria) or on an Android if you have one.

Still using video games as your main source of information on this conflict?

Pro-Assad forces kill 106 civilians in sweep (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/uk-syria-crisis-sohr-idUKBRE90G0AP20130117)

Nice way to continue to follow in Gaddafi's footsteps Assad.

Israel is contemplating launching a pre-emptive strike on Syria's stashes of chemical weapons to prevent them from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups (http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2020226589_apmlisraelsyria.html).

I don't see the problem here.  If the situation described, Assad either losing control over his CW or transferring them to Hezbollah, were to start to occur, it would make sense for Israel to act.  Thus it also makes sense to be making plans on what to do if it decides it must act.  War plans need not indicate a desire or intention to activate them.

Mrs. Assad is pregnant with their 4th child:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16745634-report-syria-president-assad-announces-wife-asma-is-pregnant?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=5

Why do I suspect she'll soon be traveling to a foreign medical clinic for her pre-natal care?

I had an embarrassing soft spot for Asma al-Assad before this thing. Indeed, my whole opinion of Syria before the civil war could be described as tragically misguided. Hope for reform, hope for detente. I, in a way, was rooting for al-Assad. Of course, the war stamped this out. But this story made me wonder, made me fear, if I still have such a soft spot.

How embarrassing.

So, Israel bombed a Syrian arms convoy to Lebanon today... Syria agrees it was bombed in an act of aggression, but says it was a military research center near Damascus that was a rebel target:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/2013130165625330449.html

Sorry if this was addressed earlier in the thread, I only skimmed the first few pages, but for all the people who vehemently support the rebels and believe the West should supply them arms or even intervene militarily: why? Not to say you should like Assad, but how do you see a better outcome if the rebels win? Especially if they win with some extra toys from the West? Does anyone seriously not think the country will descend into sectarian, near-genocidal slaughter if the rebels win?

It was a convoy of missiles heading from Syria to southern Lebanon and the asshats there that will no doubt use them.  The latest rumor I heard was that they were actually Hezzies missiles in the first place and that they had taken to Syria for safe keeping and were moving them back because they weren't all that safe anymore.

The NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/opinion/global/will-syria-bleed-hezbollah-dry.html?_r=0) thinks the Hezzies might be bleeding themselves dry....well, maybe, we can certainly hope.

It's Western geopolitical madness aimed at stopping the Chinese and Russian influence within the Middle East and Africa. The Zbigniew Brzezinski policy. Nothing to do with freedom or democracy. Egypt is a mess, Libya is a mess, Syria is a mess, Iraq is a mess, Lebanon and Mali are in the process. The end goal is, of course, the destabilization of Iran. It always has been. The West have continually overthrown, or tried to overthrow, governments that don't promote their interests (Operation Gladio in Europe during the Cold War, Iran 53, Chile and Afghanistan in the 1970s, as well as Iran in 79, Latin America in the 1980s - Nicaragua and Panama, Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003). Some of these were actually democracies as well - shock horror! 

Do I like President Assad? No. Do I like the so-called Free Syria Army? No way. If you want stability, bite the bullet and stick with the more secular Assad for now, reform can come later. If you want chaos then by all means root for the opposition, largely full of Islamist fighters and foreign mercenaries, but it won't get any better. Oh and here is a hint - if Saudi Arabia are endorsing / arming the opposition you know that democracy is not the goal.     

Why do I think this? I study Geopolitics at university, along with other geography / political modules. This doesn't mean that I'm right of course but I have some knowledge in this area and this is simply my opinion. It's incredibly ignorant to believe everything you see in the western press / media.

Read Samuel P. Huntington's book "The Clash of Civilizations".

Also Belgian MP Laurent Louis has recently said this in parliament:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCTZDH3WDjo

One of the more disgusting things about a crisis like this is that you always have people who feel a need to prove just how clever they are at the expense of the actual people living without food or petrol in the bombed remains of their city. The Assad regime is not intent on 'stability' (even the idea of a continuation of the status quo is absurd at this point, really), it just wants to annihilate its opposition or, at the very least, take as many people as possible down with it. From the beginning of this mess Assad has shown himself to be ruthless and ready to employ whatever force necessary to stay in power (and a good deal more if people also need to be taught a lesson).

None of this is news. The Assad family hasn't exactly a very glorious history when it comes to maintaining 'stability' or respecting human rights. Are there tactical considerations behind the West's support for the rebels? Possibly, but that's highly irrelevant. It's not as if Russia and China are being objective observators in this whole mess. Really, arguing in favour of Assad because of what you *think* may happen when he goes down, is beyond the pale. Yeah, I know you know all these cool facts about shi'a and sunni muslims (and alewites! and suriacs!), but the way people throw around religious divides as the be-all and end-all of politics in the region is about as absurd as it would be for a student of the 19th century to look at the relations between the Great Powers exclusively trough the spectre of catholic vs. protestant nations. It is also a good deal less innocent.

hmm.....sounds like I hit a nerve. I apologise for that but I stand by on what I said. For your information, I do not endorse any political party or organisations and I'm certainly not an apologist for the Assad regime. That being said however, I believe in the importance of national sovereignty, respect for international law, and the right for the Syrian people to decide their own political future without such a future being imposed on them by outside forces. I based my previous post on research that I have done on the crisis over the last couple of years. I'm simply against the genocide of the Syrian people and I hope peace comes quicker rather than later. How is Libya coming along after the murder of Gaddaffi? Any word on the Libyan blacks being killed by Libyan deathsquads? If the secular Assad falls then I wish the Alawite, moderate Shia and Sunnis, Jews, Druze and of course the Christians all very best and I urge no more violence, although I doubt this will happen.   

http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/black-genocide-libya-why-silence
http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/07/libya-ethnic-cleansing/

A favourite opposition argument is that peaceful protesters restrained themselves for a long time until the “brutal crackdown by the Assad regime”. However, Robert Fisk of the Independent – first real western journalist to visit Daraa (where the so-called uprisings began) – found a very confusing scene.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-inside-daraya--how-a-failed-prisoner-swap-turned-into-a-massacre-8084727.html

“Being the first western eyewitness into the town yesterday was as frustrating as it was dangerous. The bodies of men, women and children had, of course, been moved from the cemetery where many of them were found; and when we arrived in the company of Syrian troops at the Sunni Muslim graveyard – divided by the main road through Daraya – snipers opened fire at the soldiers, hitting the back of the ancient armoured vehicle in which we made our escape. Yet we could talk to civilians out of earshot of Syrian officials – in two cases in the security of their own homes – and their narrative of last Saturday’s mass killing of 245 men, women and children suggested that the atrocities were far more widespread than supposed.”

Who are these mysterious “snipers” firing at the Syrian soldiers and Robert Fisk then?

Notice that witness Leena says a number of dead bodies were lying in the street BEFORE the Syrian Army even turned up – who shot these then? The snipers?

The article continues to talk to other eyewitness of the tragic event. Many people in the comment section are beginning to say that Fisk was being biased. I’m not so sure – he is a respective journalist in the Middle East who has criticized Dictator President Assad on a number of occasions. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-assad-faces-his-peoples-hatred--but-as-their-anger-grows-his-excuses-are-still-just-the-same-6287792.html

Now, do these snipers belong to the Free Syria Army or the Syrian Army? My conclusion is NO. Are these snipers working for someone else? There must be a chaotic third party involved. We know that Al Qaeda has been working in Syria along with Al Nusra and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – do the snipers belong to them? Who is funding these terriost networks?

Here are some references confirming the presence of Islamist networks terrorising Syria:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/us-syria-crisis-town-idUSBRE90T0VH20130130
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-clinton-admits-us-on-same-side-as-al-qaeda-to-destabilise-assad-government/29524
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/28/al-qaeda-syria-bombing/1869959/
http://www.newser.com/story/154739/reporter-killed-by-sniper-in-syria-during-live-broadcast.html
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/06/houl-j16.html

1. Yeah, Fisk is a very decent journalist. I'll happily grant you that.

2. A civil war is a civil war. It's a nasty, dirty conflict with atrocities on both sides. Noone is disputing that. What I have a problem with is pretending that there is any outcome of this conflict where Assad stays in place and where there is not a day of reckoning troughout all of the rebel heartlands. Or that Assad is good for 'stability'.

3. Your post wasn't the main trigger for my post, nor was my post directed mainly at you. It's just a certain trend in reporting on the Middle East that I find both tiresome and, as I said, far from innocent.

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.

Surprisingly, Turkey is accusing Israel of "state terrorism" for bombing Syria:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/02/20132317737493423.html

You mean "surprisingly", right?

Lol. The Turkish government's aware that they've been at war for what, 40 years now, right?

That's what I wrote.

And it is surprising since Turkey has sent some artillery fire into Syria, and seem to want a military intervention. Yet they call Israel a sponsor of state terrorism for bombing them too...

No they haven't... things have only soured between them since the Gaza war/blockade about 4 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Turkey_relations#Diplomatic_and_political_relations

He was talking about Israel and Syria being in a technical state of war for 40 years.

Obviously this is politics, the current Turkish government hate Israel so they say these things. In the same way, Turkey calls what Israel does to the Palestinians genocide, even in cases that are minor compared to what the Turks do to the Kurds. That is just the way politics work, and it isn't even remotely surprising if you follow the news.

A senior commander in Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard reportedly killed in Lebanon (http://www.startribune.com/world/191081841.html)Well that's good news.  I like the "mercenaries of the Zionist regime" part.

This fellow was Imadinnerjacket's personal representative in Lebanon.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-syria-crisisgulfl5n0bbe9e-20130220,0,6983643.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-syria-crisisgulfl5n0bbe9e-20130220,0,6983643.story)

I think they're probably right. Being too hands-off gives the view, however wrong, that the US/the West just doesn't care who is in government in Syria. In turn, that feeds into support for jihadist groups, both on the usual anti-US/anti-Western lines and because the jihadis are the ones with weapons, so the rebels become more dependent on them the fewer weapons they can get from elsewhere.

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.

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.

Interesting article but there are one paragraph you should focus on


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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/britain-france-claim-syria-used-chemical-weapons/2013/04/18/f17a2e7c-a82f-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_print.html

Breaking: Hagel has just announced that US intel confirms chemical weapons use by Assad.

Sarin, to be precise.

If this is true, it is time to intervene.

Looks like the US is going to ask the UN to confirm, to be absolutely sure.

The plot thickens...

UN's Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels 'used sarin' in Syria


A United Nations inquiry into human rights abuses in Syria has found evidence to suggest that rebel forces may have used chemical weapons, its lead investigator has revealed.

Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN independent commission of inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff indicated that the nerve agent sarin gas was used by rebel fighters.

"Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Ms Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television, broadcast on Sunday.

"This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

Ms Del Ponte added that the inquiry has yet to see any direct evidence suggesting that government forces have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was required before this possibility could be ruled out.

...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html

I suppose that complicates intervention a bit... ::)

Both sides in this 'war' disgust me.

It's not like the Rebels are all on the same side... they're quite diverse. Most of the extremist rebels aren't even from Syria.

Finally, a glimmer of hope:

U.S. and Russia Plan Conference Aimed at Ending Syrian War (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/world/middleeast/syria-golan-heights-united-nations.html?ref=global-home&_r=0&pagewanted=all)

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and RICK GLADSTONE
Published: May 7, 2013

MOSCOW — Russia and the United States announced on Tuesday that they would seek to convene an international conference within weeks aimed at ending the civil war in Syria, jointly intensifying their diplomatic pressure on the combatants to peacefully settle a conflict that has taken more than 70,000 lives and left millions displaced and desperate.

(...)

The announcement appeared to signal a strong desire by both countries to halt what has been a dangerous escalation in the conflict, with evidence of chemical weapons use, a surge in the number of civilians fleeing combat, and a refugee crisis that is overwhelming Syria’s neighbors. Israeli aerial attacks this past weekend on suspected munitions sites in Syria heightened and further complicated the tensions in the region.

Mr. Kerry’s visit also came as the Obama administration is facing increasing calls to intervene in the conflict with lethal military aid to the insurgency or perhaps stronger action such as enforcement of a no-fly zone over Syria to protect rebel-held areas. The effort to seek a negotiated solution with the Russians suggested the administration at least wanted to first make a public push in the diplomacy direction.

That won't go anywhere. Neither Assad nor the rebels want to compromise with the other side.

4 explosions inside Turkey on the border with Syria, Turkey moving air and ground forces to border.  Link shortly.

link (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-315179-turkey-sends-military-reinforcements-to-syrian-border-after-blast.html)

better article on the earlier explosions (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/explosions-hit-turkish-town-on-border-with-syria-killing-four-and-injuring-22.aspx?pageID=238&nID=46682&NewsCatID=341)...up to 42 dead now


...seems there's been another explosion...link (http://www.suriyegercekleri.com/2013/05/11/televizyona-cikan-reyhanlili-vatandas-78-olu-300%E2%80%B2den-fazla-yarali-var-olu-sayisi-artabilir/)....I believe that's saying there are 78 dead now

Turkey arrests 'pro-Damascus' bombers (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/turkey-arrests-pro-damascus-bombers/story-e6frg6so-1226640622654)

Why would Syria want Turkey in the war? Color me skeptical.

Pro-Assad bombers doesn't necessarily mean bombers taking orders from Assad.  They could just be members of some pro-Assad militia lashing out at Turkey for aiding the rebels, not really thinking through the geopolitical consequences.

Possible, but a false flag operation is also possible,

Indeed.

Russia's sending Assad advanced ASMs. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world/middleeast/russia-provides-syria-with-advanced-missiles.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0)

Doesn't surprise me. Russia can't just allow it's ally to be overtaken because helping them wouldn't be "moral" in the eyes of the West.

Rebel caught on video eating heart of dead soldier: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22523804 (not a link to the actual video)

Surprised nobody posted it... not.

But I'm SURE he's just a single bad apple sullying the reputation of otherwise noble rebel forces, right? Right??

The Navy arm of the Free Syrian Army must be getting fierce!

The west supporting a rebellion by radical Islamists in a proxy war against Russia. Hasn't this happened before?

Don't worry, we always stay good friends with our allies in that part of the world like the Afghan Mujahideen and Saddam Hussein.

I've come to the point where I don't really care which side wins.

Actually from the article:


Disturbing but not exactly a war crime in my view anyway, biting the heart of someone who's already dead doesn't hurt the dead person any more than they already are.

Maybe eating a dead person's body isn't a war crime per se, but committing an indignity against a human body is unnecessary and obscene. Especially when the Koran expressly forbids it.

I don't believe the promise. The Syrian rebellion ceased being an organized fighting force like in Libya long ago, and the longer it drags on the more the radical Islamist groups marginalize what's left of the genuinely pro-democratic opposition.

Assad played his cards well in turning the initially peaceful and non-sectarian demands for democracy into a sectarian bloodbath.

Well if the Koran forbids it, that's just evidence AGAINST someone being a radical Islamist.

Regardless it's a lot of debate over one person. I'm sure you could find more than a few cases of Assad's forces desecrating the dead.

The Bible forbids plenty of things. Doesn't stop self-proclaimed Christians from doing so.

There you go. By equating the rebels with Assad's forces, it's clear to everyone that there's no good side in this war. And if anything, Assad and Putin can occupy the moral high ground claiming they're preventing a genocide against minority groups. Putin expressly promised to make protecting Christians a priority of his foreign policy before retaking the presidency last year.

Yesterday, Assad said he liked the Russia-US idea of new peace-talks.

Today, Assad said he's happy because the peace-talks will fail and the US will have to deal with a regime victory.

Maybe it's not in our best interests to support peace talks?


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/assad-peace-talks-fail-america-160642097.html

Chancellor Faymann has said that if the EU fails to reach an agreement on the arms embargo for the Syrian rebels that's running out in June, Austria might pull out of the Golan completely. Currently, Austria has 400 soldiers in the Golan between Israel and Syria as part of a UN peacekeeping mission that started in the 70s. If Austria moves out, the Philippines will do so as well (they have said so a few weeks ago). Austria and the Philippines have almost all troops there, just a few Indian troops are there as well. Arming the rebels would be way too dangerous for our soldiers there, especially if they or the regime decides to attack Israel via the Golan. Vice Chancellor Spindelegger and Defense Minister Klug back the Chancellor on this issue.

I'm reposting a comment (http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/05/iraq-and-syria) here found in The Economist by a man by the name or pseudonym of 'Mark Dowe' (p.s. I have explored this person's online footprint and he is one of the most knowledgeable people I have ever encountered on the Internet)

Jabhat al-Nusra has been steadily winning battles and gaining popular support since its inception in January 2012. Last month, its leader was forced to publicly clarify the group’s relationship with al-Qaeda. In a YouTube video posted on April 10, Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani said: ‘The sons of al-Nusra pledge allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri’, Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man and the acting head of al-Qaeda.

With that declaration, Jawlani heightened suspicions in the West that significant elements of the Syrian opposition are ideologically and tactically aligned with al-Qaeda. Nusra is now deemed a ‘terrorist’ organisation by the United States.

Jabhat al-Nusra has attracted radical fighters, including those that fought battles in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. The organisation is considered one of the most effective groups battling the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The group’s roots can also be traced back to the activities of deceased al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi during the early 2000s. Fighting US forces in Iraq, Zarqawi is believed to have amassed fighters, sending some to Syria and Lebanon to establish branches of his network – so called ‘guesthouses’ to train and funnel fighters to Iraq. When it became clear the Syrian uprising of 2011 evolved into a full and bloodied civil war, many of those experienced fighters in Iraq detoured to Syria, with the goal of removing Assad in the hope of establishing an Islamic caliphate in the Levant.

The experience of the al-Nusra fighters as jihadists sets them apart from other groups, such as the ragtag Free Syrian Army. This experience helps Nusra to identify goals and to strategise more effectively, and they often plan in other countries. There tactics are reflective of their training in asymmetric warfare in Iraq – car bombings, suicide missions, and the targeting of security forces.

Nusra is now a well-disciplined and organised group that is gaining more and more ground against the Assad regime. Syrians are increasingly throwing their support behind the rebel groups, in spite of its Islamist ideologies. Previously, too, the United States had decried Jabhat al-Nusra as being the bogeyman of the West. Support – or at least resigned acceptance – comes from many sides now, some unexpected. Some, for example, say that al-Nusra’s Salafist leanings do not pose any risk to the freedom of Syrians or the type of power that will emerge in Syria after the war. Many Syrians believe that al-Nusra can protect the people, rather than exploit them (as has been the case with some other Free Syrian Army brigades). Others, though, such as Abdelbaset Sieda, president of the Syrian National Council, emphasises that al-Nusra’s radical ideology is a complete anathema to Syria’s moderate social environment which thrives on diversity, rather than narrow and literal interpretations of Islamic scripture.

Hassan Nasrallah went on TV earlier in the day and made his most emphatic statement of support for Assad to date:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-fighting-hezbollah-20130526,0,7835258.story


Then a few hours later, two rockets hit Beirut neighborhoods that are strongholds of Hezbollah:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/26/lebanon-hezbollah-beirut-syria/2361459/

Though we don't know who fired them.  Presumably either Israel or Syrian rebels?  Or Sunni islamists who are sympathetic to the Syrian rebels?  Who the heck knows anymore, with this many players now involved?

It's clear where this guy's sympathies lie, but he's still pretty funny (as he was during the Arab Spring):

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

A regular Baghdad Bob this guy is.

Russia sending S300 anti-aircraft weapons to Assad, nobody else likes this, Israel promises a response.

link (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/28/18557392-israel-warns-of-action-over-russian-plan-to-give-missiles-to-syrias-assad?lite)

The more Israel attacks Assad, the more credibility it gives to the regime.

To who other than bigots?

Its hard to see that there are any population groups in Syria that would suddenly start to back the regime at this point just because of anti-Israeli sentiments.

Israel is clearly a secondary issue in the middle of a ferocious civil war.

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

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

Uh, you do realize that most Muslims have an unfavorable opinion of Israel, right? (I may just be understating things a bit ;) )

But politicus is right that few are likely to change sides now.

Yes and my point stands.  If you don't have a team to root for in this conflict and Israel blowing sh**t up causes you to pull for Assad, then yes, you're a bigot.

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.

North Korean military officers are now on the ground in Syria, helping Assad (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4387732,00.html)

I think we can now say everyone is involved there.

Norks-have you tried firing some of your missiles into the sea?
Syria-it's more of an internal problem
Norks-have you tried an outdated political system that leads (as it always does) to mass starvation?  It's hard to rablle rouse on 79 calories a day
Syria-no, we don't hate money
Norks-don't you usually blame the Jews when you need to pull your people together
Syria-of course we tried that...that was the second, forth, seventh, eighth and ninth things we tried.  We even tried giving terrorists more missiles and the Jews blew up the building we hid them in, it's not fair really.  Do you know they have spy sharks and birds and sh**t? 
Norks-don't get me started!  Bad Korea is always trying to give our people information about how much better life is everywhere outside of Best Korea.

I think the Syrian Loyalists have promised reward to Hezbollah for their assistance in the war. In the article posted by Starwatcher it says that Hezbollah personnel are starting to man Syrian tanks and armored vehicles. I think Hezbollah is gaining the troops experience in using these weapons and will eventually incorporate tanks into their "army". We have to remember that Hezbollah is practically a nation-state with a standing army at this point.

Also keep in mind that Qusair is a key supply route for weapons and equipment from Syrian into Lebanon. Hezbollah is as a result "forced" to intervene to hold Qusair for the Loyalists to keep the route open.

They could of course do airstrikes on anything going in or out and if attacked, can defend. It appears to be a complicated situation for them.

This isn't a war anymore, it's a [inks]ing freakshow.

The next step is for some Minuteman volunteers to go to Damascus to protect the US border from incursions by Syrian refugees.

...or the French trying to re-establish the mandate. :P

Qusair finally fell to government forces after two weeks of fighting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22778310

Bad news for the rebels. Without foreign intervention, it's looking like they will lose.

Nah, they still hold Aleppo, most of the entire north and eastern provinces.

Indeed.  It (Qusair) is much more important to Assad's boys than it was to the FSA.  It was good to deny it from them, but it wasn't a good place (or time) for a Waterloo.

I don't think Assad can actually "win" in the sense that he'll never have enough forces to hold the whole country together at once.  But a stalemate that goes on for years and years is certainly possible.  How long did the Lebanese Civil War last?  15 years?

So it seems that Assad still has some European friends: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/11/bnp-nick-griffin-syria-assad

U.S. government confirms multiple uses of chemical weapons by the Assad government, pledges to act

It seems we are going to provide 'direct military support' to the Syrian rebels:

U.S., citing use of chemical weapons by Syria, to provide direct military support to rebels (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-concludes-syrian-forces-used-chemical-weapons/2013/06/13/59b03c66-d46d-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z1)

By Karen DeYoung and Anne Gearan, Updated: Thursday, June 13, 9:17 PM

The United States has concluded that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in its fight against opposition forces, and President Obama has authorized direct U.S. military support to the rebels, the White House said Thursday.

“The president has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser. Rhodes said U.S. intelligence had determined with “high certainty” that Syrian government forces have “used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.”

Intelligence agencies estimate that 100 to 150 people have died as a result of chemical weapons use, he said.

Rhodes did not detail what he called the expanded military support, but it is expected initially to consist of light arms and ammunition. He said the shipments would be “responsive to the needs” expressed by the rebel command.

Obama has “not made any decision” to pursue a military option such as a no-fly zone and has ruled out the deployment of U.S. ground troops, Rhodes said.

Apparently the chemical weapons were only part of the reason for a decision that was coming anyway. According to Politico,

“The decision was ultimately driven by the discovery Assad used [chemical weapons] but there were a number of other factors in place that were also important,” conceded an administration official with direct knowledge of the deliberations.

“Would we have made [the determination Assad had breached the red line] even if we didn’t have the evidence? Probably.”

This seems more related to the promotion of Susan Rice and John Kerry than anything else. Apparently, Tom Donilon and Chuck Hagel were not as enthusiastic as Rice.

I wonder how far Obama will go with this.

Arming Sunni Islamists to beat Russia in a proxy war? Why does that sound familiar...

Israel would do what they nearly did in the Six Day War and torch the place to ash. We in the West seriously underestimate Israel as a ruthless military force nowadays.

And just like that Israel and the US are really going to increase their popularity in the Middle East...

That's nothing compared to the Colombian civil war.

Oh goodie, another black female Stanford alum as National Security Advisor who is a warmonger.

I think the bigger factors were how Hezbollah and Iran are now investing everything in Assad quite openly, and Russia trying to plays us for fools.

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.

Iran to send 4000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy-ab&q=iran%20to%20send%204000&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=caa84096235e7292&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47883778,d.eWU&biw=1366&bih=643)-link goes to Google search

Good that we are getting out of there right now ...

Wonder how Ankara is going to react to actually having Iranian troops in Syria. Iran having bases in the Mediterranean is one of the "worst case scenarios" the Turks have. Of course they will likely wait and see how it all develops, but its still a provocation.

Here is a more alarming version of this:

An attack on Israel would be a major mistake at this point. With Hezbollah and Iranian support they have a good chance of defeating the rebels. Opening up another front will jeopardize this.

Indeed, that seems like the stupidest of plans.

I think they're probably smart enough to not strike first, at least. Perhaps they're just trying to deter Israel from getting more involved in the conflict?

It was actually kind of interesting until I noticed it was World Net Daily.

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.

Apparently we're only going to be supplying the rebels with small arms and ammunition. I'm sure that'll prove useful :P I've gotta hand it to Brobama on this one, he's really having his cake and eating it too.

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. 

Really good piece illustrating the lack of any real good-bad divide in this conflict.

Trying to portray the people who started this in a sympathetic manner is pretty vile. The article says "The price of loyalty"...yeah loyalty to a murderous brutal dictator.

If I was an Alawite in Syria, I'd just convert out of it. No way I want to be on the side of a brutal murderer like Assad.

Alawite is de facto an ethnic identity more than a religious one per se, you cant just convert out of it. Its like the old Ulster joke, "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?". "I am an atheist". "Yes, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?". Only even more true in Syria.

You might be well-advised to not try and explain this to BRTD.

What if you were devout and didn't want to convert out of it? There are people out there with sincere religious convictions, though I know it's very hard for many lefties to comprehend ;)

More generally, I'm really not convinced that the religious minorities would have been treated any better had there been a relatively swift and peaceful transfer of power. As the article indicates, sectarianism began to become apparent very very early on, before the situation had even devolved to all-out civil war. I'm also thinking of the Coptic Egyptians' experience as a parallel

lol BRTD

The US has secretly been training Syrian rebels at bases in Jordan and Turkey since late last year:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622,0,4448399.story

yes yes I know, no one outside the US EVER converts and it's impossible for Hispanics to be Lutherans. Because CULTURE OMG!