Damascus preparing for Western military strike: people flee country, military commands relocated

[F430murci]

Yes Hawker. You are correct. I have heard 4 star general say that in less than 3 days would take out air and delivery capabilities perhaps resulting in downfall of Assad. Seems like even though Bama may want Assad gone, the bigger concern is what happens and who replaces him when he is gone.

Candidly, no matter what US does Syria will remain a disaster and US will get blamed for either doing nothing or causing Assad to fall leading to further instability and continued fighting.

These guys are going to continue to fight and kill no matter what anyone does and no matter the outcome. Perhaps just pull civilians out and later them kill each other.

Edited September 2, 2013 by F430murci

[hawker9000]

The more the strikes are expanded to ensure wiping out Assad's delivery systems, into several days or weeks (whatever it might take), the more likelihood of civilian casualties, and I'm not actually sure it can be done at all so long as places like Tartus are off-limits and without boots on the ground. Though it might be - certainly with more than a pin-prick missile strike - possible to bring down Assad, what's the point of bringing him down if his successors will just be Muslim Brotherhood and other muslim extremists, who kill people, too (and not just in Syria!), and are likely to destabilize the Middle East even more than it is now (and certainly aren't suddenly going to suddenly become our "friends" just because we helped bring down Assad)? This whole thing is about as close as you can get to no-win, and that would be true with or without Obama's famous red line. (The red line thing just cost the US even more credibility than it had already lost...but only really changes the dynamics of the Syrian issue to the extent that Obama, and hence the US, is not to be taken too seriously)

[F430murci]

The more the strikes are expanded to ensure wiping out Assad's delivery systems, into several days or weeks (whatever it might take), the more likelihood of civilian casualties, and I'm not actually sure it can be done at all so long as places like Tartus are off-limits and without boots on the ground. Though it might be - certainly with more than a pin-prick missile strike - possible to bring down Assad, what's the point of bringing him down if his successors will just be Muslim Brotherhood and other muslim extremists, who kill people, too (and not just in Syria!), and are likely to destabilize the Middle East even more than it is now (and certainly aren't suddenly going to suddenly become our "friends" just because we helped bring down Assad)? This whole thing is about as close as you can get to no-win, and that would be true with or without Obama's famous red line. (The red line thing just cost the US even more credibility than it had already lost...but only really changes the dynamics of the Syrian issue to the extent that Obama, and hence the US, is not to be taken too seriously)

Probably cannot now. Assad probably has school children and political prisoners lining his runways and strapped to his missile systems. He apparently went gung ho with human shields so they can stream videos of dead women and children from US air strikes. Lovely man that Assad.

Edited September 2, 2013 by F430murci

[NeverSure]

Just heard report on TV here that lawmakers ate saying intel showing Assad did this is pretty conclusive (satellite, witnesses and etc.) and that congressmen are apparently on their way to capital hill.

British and US intelligence say they know of have evidence of 14 other recent chemical attacks by Assad in more remote areas against rebel forces. The August 21 release just got too big and too much attention.

Pub, I am with you. I cannot believe all of the animosity toward US when we have innocent civilians getting gassed and school yards being napalmed. It is like people have completely lost all humanity because they are so angry at and obsessed with Bama. Sad.

Yes Hawker. You are correct. I have heard 4 star general say that in less than 3 days would take out air and delivery capabilities perhaps resulting in downfall of Assad. Seems like even though Bama may want Assad gone, the bigger concern is what happens and who replaces him when he is gone.

Candidly, no matter what US does Syria will remain a disaster and US will get blamed for either doing nothing or causing Assad to fall leading to further instability and continued fighting.

These guys are going to continue to fight and kill no matter what anyone does and no matter the outcome. Perhaps just pull civilians out and later them kill each other.

These two posts confuse me. I can't tell what you want.

As a non-hating American, I just can't see any advantage in taking out Assad and leaving what may be worse.

If there were obvious good guys in white hats struggling against obvious bad guys in black hats, and I knew for sure that the black hats were using chemical weapons on the white hats, then I'd support a strike.

As it is, I don't see a good outcome as a result of a strike. You do realize that the US and allies have interfered in a lot of places without a good outcome?

What's the objective here? You can't fire missiles at chemical weapons depots. You can only spank the perps if you know for sure who they are.

And then what?

[Baloo22]

I will agree with those that say that Assad is a brutal dictator. It's true. We certainly should not be putting the term "Saint" in front of the name Assad. Yes, he is a bad boy. One of the many problems with Obama's wish to go in blasting is that it ignores that reality that all antagonists in that conflict are, for the lack of a better term, barbarians! You can't throw a stone up in the air over there without it landing on some group that is now committing or has committed some act of savagery or "war crime".

They have been doing this butchering and massacres to each other for centuries. The only thing that has changed is the technology. And, most likely, they will be doing it to each other for the next century. If you go to the Wikipedia page for the Hama Massacre of 1982 and you will see a comment right at the beginning that is very illuminating. It says: "Not to be confused with 2012 Hama massacre or 1981 Hama massacre."

[F430murci]

Just heard report on TV here that lawmakers ate saying intel showing Assad did this is pretty conclusive (satellite, witnesses and etc.) and that congressmen are apparently on their way to capital hill.

British and US intelligence say they know of have evidence of 14 other recent chemical attacks by Assad in more remote areas against rebel forces. The August 21 release just got too big and too much attention.

Pub, I am with you. I cannot believe all of the animosity toward US when we have innocent civilians getting gassed and school yards being napalmed. It is like people have completely lost all humanity because they are so angry at and obsessed with Bama. Sad.

Yes Hawker. You are correct. I have heard 4 star general say that in less than 3 days would take out air and delivery capabilities perhaps resulting in downfall of Assad. Seems like even though Bama may want Assad gone, the bigger concern is what happens and who replaces him when he is gone.

Candidly, no matter what US does Syria will remain a disaster and US will get blamed for either doing nothing or causing Assad to fall leading to further instability and continued fighting.

These guys are going to continue to fight and kill no matter what anyone does and no matter the outcome. Perhaps just pull civilians out and later them kill each other.

These two posts confuse me. I can't tell what you want.

As a non-hating American, I just can't see any advantage in taking out Assad and leaving what may be worse.

If there were obvious good guys in white hats struggling against obvious bad guys in black hats, and I knew for sure that the black hats were using chemical weapons on the white hats, then I'd support a strike.

As it is, I don't see a good outcome as a result of a strike. You do realize that the US and allies have interfered in a lot of places without a good outcome?

What's the objective here? You can't fire missiles at chemical weapons depots. You can only spank the perps if you know for sure who they are.

And then what?

I would like to see something done to protect the innocent civilians. I don't have an agenda. I thought Bama should have attacked, without warning, Assad's air and delivery capabilities last week. Firing at chemical weapon stock piles is too risky.

The delay and Bama tipping his hand has only given Assad time to put human shields in place and move items where US cannot attack with collateral damage.

Not sure attack is prudent now because it will now be very difficult to take out what needs to be taken out and some warning shot across the bow is beyond stupid and will make us look even weaker.

I think Bama should keep his mouth shut if has no inclination or ability to follow through. But for his imaginary line and his grand standing, most, including myself, would have never been looking for military intervention and we would not have lost so much face in the international community.

[Publicus]

Syria without Assad is a Syria in anarchy and chaos with no one able to be an effective government and perhaps no one group able to exist as a government either for very long or at all.

Syria without Assad is a Syria that is not aligned with Moscow and Tehran.

Syria without Assad effectively dissolves into endless infighting and a long period of internal conflict.

Syria without Assad would remove a negative player in the Middle East and In the world.

Syria without Assad disappears as a player in the Middle East.

I'll buy that.

[F430murci]

Interesting looking and comprehensive article.

Arab states call for international action against Syrian regime

Syrian refugees say US failed to deliver again

Exiled Syrians say the U.S. has a pattern of promising to help them but then failing to do so. Americans are split on the issue of intervention. NBC's Richard Engel and Luke Russert report.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/01/20280931-arab-states-call-for-international-action-against-syrian-regime?lite

[Baloo22]

There is another country who's leader seems very eager for a strong attack on Assad's military and believes those military strikes should result in a "regime change" in Syria. Prime Minister Erdogan is very enthusiastic about military action against Assad and insists that it be powerful enough to force a regime change in Syria. Obama should be the one saying to Erdogan; "Fine, you want military action, then the Turkish armed forces need to be at the forefront of that action!"

A quick survey of Wikipedia (not saying it's the final authority) indicates that Turkey has the second largest army in NATO and the third largest Air Force in NATO which includes a substantial number of modern aircraft. Erdogan has no excuse not to use his country's military in the effort.

Edited to add: And Obama has no excuse for failing to press Erdogan for Turkish military forces to be included in Syria strikes!

Edited September 2, 2013 by Baloo22

[Baloo22]

Interesting looking and comprehensive article.

Arab states call for international action against Syrian regime

Syrian refugees say US failed to deliver again

Exiled Syrians say the U.S. has a pattern of promising to help them but then failing to do so. Americans are split on the issue of intervention. NBC's Richard Engel and Luke Russert report.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/01/20280931-arab-states-call-for-international-action-against-syrian-regime?lite

So; "Arab states call for international action against Syrian regime". That's fantastic! Now for the million dollar question; How many of those Arab states are going to pony up some military forces for that international action against the Syrian regime?

Waiting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NeverSure]

Just heard report on TV here that lawmakers ate saying intel showing Assad did this is pretty conclusive (satellite, witnesses and etc.) and that congressmen are apparently on their way to capital hill.

British and US intelligence say they know of have evidence of 14 other recent chemical attacks by Assad in more remote areas against rebel forces. The August 21 release just got too big and too much attention.

Pub, I am with you. I cannot believe all of the animosity toward US when we have innocent civilians getting gassed and school yards being napalmed. It is like people have completely lost all humanity because they are so angry at and obsessed with Bama. Sad.

Yes Hawker. You are correct. I have heard 4 star general say that in less than 3 days would take out air and delivery capabilities perhaps resulting in downfall of Assad. Seems like even though Bama may want Assad gone, the bigger concern is what happens and who replaces him when he is gone.

Candidly, no matter what US does Syria will remain a disaster and US will get blamed for either doing nothing or causing Assad to fall leading to further instability and continued fighting.

These guys are going to continue to fight and kill no matter what anyone does and no matter the outcome. Perhaps just pull civilians out and later them kill each other.

These two posts confuse me. I can't tell what you want.

As a non-hating American, I just can't see any advantage in taking out Assad and leaving what may be worse.

If there were obvious good guys in white hats struggling against obvious bad guys in black hats, and I knew for sure that the black hats were using chemical weapons on the white hats, then I'd support a strike.

As it is, I don't see a good outcome as a result of a strike. You do realize that the US and allies have interfered in a lot of places without a good outcome?

What's the objective here? You can't fire missiles at chemical weapons depots. You can only spank the perps if you know for sure who they are.

And then what?

I would like to see something done to protect the innocent civilians. I don't have an agenda. I thought Bama should have attacked, without warning, Assad's air and delivery capabilities last week. Firing at chemical weapon stock piles is too risky.

The delay and Bama tipping his hand has only given Assad time to put human shields in place and move items where US cannot attack with collateral damage.

Not sure attack is prudent now because it will now be very difficult to take out what needs to be taken out and some warning shot across the bow is beyond stupid and will make us look even weaker.

I think Bama should keep his mouth shut if has no inclination or ability to follow through. But for his imaginary line and his grand standing, most, including myself, would have never been looking for military intervention and we would not have lost so much face in the international community.

[lannarebirth]

From elsewhere :

And simply because he made a foolish statement last year, he is considering a unilateral attack on Syria just to save face.

So what is it going to do if he does (against we are told against the wishes of the majority of the American people,) go ahead and bomb Libya other than show that he has acted against the use of chemical weapons as he said he would.

Well it will kill more people to start with.

From what I read the rebel forces in Libya include groups from other countries who have stepped in to 'help' including al-Qaeda.

Even if Obama did manage to get rid of the Assad Govt what would take their place?

An al-Qaeda backed govt that would start a purge.

Does it not seem strange that the US is supposed to be fighting al-Qaeda in one, or 2, other countries and backing and arming them to fight a Govt in another?

Sshhh!

[simple1]

Syria without Assad is a Syria in anarchy and chaos with no one able to be an effective government and perhaps no one group able to exist as a government either for very long or at all.

Syria without Assad is a Syria that is not aligned with Moscow and Tehran.

Syria without Assad effectively dissolves into endless infighting and a long period of internal conflict.

Syria without Assad would remove a negative player in the Middle East and In the world.

Syria without Assad disappears as a player in the Middle East.

I'll buy that.

Syria without Assad equates to a victory by Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States (supported by the US/NATO) in their proxy war with Iran. But what happens to the armed forces and security aparatus. Surely they will not just disband them as they did in Iraq with the well know outcomes of that policy. That would mean Syria, once internally stabalised, remains a threat/player in the region.

I agree with you that if the rebels are able to defeat the Assad regime forces there will be further bloodshed whilst the rebel factions try to sort out who actually rules the country and massive revenge killings, same as when the Ayotallahs came to power in Iran. Not forgetting revenge against Assad's militia who have been carrying out a lot of the "dirty work" of ethnic cleansing and murder of civilian opponents.

Assad has repeatedly stated he will stay in Syria. Dictators do not have a track record of facing the consequences of their actions. Maybe if push finally comes to shove Assad, his family and some close suporters will accept asylum in another country; perhaps Iran?

[simple1]

There is another country who's leader seems very eager for a strong attack on Assad's military and believes those military strikes should result in a "regime change" in Syria. Prime Minister Erdogan is very enthusiastic about military action against Assad and insists that it be powerful enough to force a regime change in Syria. Obama should be the one saying to Erdogan; "Fine, you want military action, then the Turkish armed forces need to be at the forefront of that action!"

A quick survey of Wikipedia (not saying it's the final authority) indicates that Turkey has the second largest army in NATO and the third largest Air Force in NATO which includes a substantial number of modern aircraft. Erdogan has no excuse not to use his country's military in the effort.

Edited to add: And Obama has no excuse for failing to press Erdogan for Turkish military forces to be included in Syria strikes!

You don't think that if Turkey leads that will possibly trigger a ground war with Iran and drag NATO into direct conflict; probably why Turkey would be reticent for their armed forces to be actively engaged. NATO has repeatedly stated, as a matter of policy, they do not wish to have boots on the ground.

The Turkish armed forces have struggled for years in their fight with the Turkish Kurds, they do not have a good track record.

[Nowhereman60]

America please stay the hell out of this. It is a no win situation for us. One side is no better than the other. Best to stay the hell out of the middle east and all those God Damn Muslim terrorist. Let both side kill themselves, it's better that way.

[Kommiekat]

We went to war with Iraq based on lies, fakers and con-men.

Now we will go to war with Syria based on Youtube vids.

Great.

[Publicus]

Syria without Assad is a Syria in anarchy and chaos with no one able to be an effective government and perhaps no one group able to exist as a government either for very long or at all.

Syria without Assad is a Syria that is not aligned with Moscow and Tehran.

Syria without Assad effectively dissolves into endless infighting and a long period of internal conflict.

Syria without Assad would remove a negative player in the Middle East and In the world.

Syria without Assad disappears as a player in the Middle East.

I'll buy that.

Syria without Assad equates to a victory by Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States (supported by the US/NATO) in their proxy war with Iran. But what happens to the armed forces and security aparatus. Surely they will not just disband them as they did in Iraq with the well know outcomes of that policy. That would mean Syria, once internally stabalised, remains a threat/player in the region.

I agree with you that if the rebels are able to defeat the Assad regime forces there will be further bloodshed whilst the rebel factions try to sort out who actually rules the country and massive revenge killings, same as when the Ayotallahs came to power in Iran. Not forgetting revenge against Assad's militia who have been carrying out a lot of the "dirty work" of ethnic cleansing and murder of civilian opponents.

Assad has repeatedly stated he will stay in Syria. Dictators do not have a track record of facing the consequences of their actions. Maybe if push finally comes to shove Assad, his family and some close suporters will accept asylum in another country; perhaps Iran?

Syria without Assad means the armed forces and the security apparatus have no leader and become a part of the mix of the many groups fighting to gain control of the national government.

There wouldn't be any nation any more and anyone trying to establish a national government would necessarily fail. They may manage to be in charge for a while, but would be driven out by the other forces trying to gain control of the country. Syria effectively would cease to exist.

The armed forces and the security apparatus would be headless, without a leader or focus. They'd just become another part of the mix of maniacs and murderers, none of which could predominate. Included in the murdering mix would be the present proxy fighters of each Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as other governments to include the West led by the United States.

[mania]

There wouldn't be any nation any more and anyone trying to establish a national government would necessarily fail. They may manage to be in charge for a while, but would be driven out by the other forces trying to gain control of the country. Syria effectively would cease to exist.

It is odd to hear the pro-intervention faction claim humanitarian reasons

on the one hand & on the other next suggest Anarchy will be so much better. For the folks living there?

Nations & their inhabitants never cease to exist.

[Publicus]

Just heard report on TV here that lawmakers ate saying intel showing Assad did this is pretty conclusive (satellite, witnesses and etc.) and that congressmen are apparently on their way to capital hill.

British and US intelligence say they know of have evidence of 14 other recent chemical attacks by Assad in more remote areas against rebel forces. The August 21 release just got too big and too much attention.

Pub, I am with you. I cannot believe all of the animosity toward US when we have innocent civilians getting gassed and school yards being napalmed. It is like people have completely lost all humanity because they are so angry at and obsessed with Bama. Sad.

Yes Hawker. You are correct. I have heard 4 star general say that in less than 3 days would take out air and delivery capabilities perhaps resulting in downfall of Assad. Seems like even though Bama may want Assad gone, the bigger concern is what happens and who replaces him when he is gone.

Candidly, no matter what US does Syria will remain a disaster and US will get blamed for either doing nothing or causing Assad to fall leading to further instability and continued fighting.

These guys are going to continue to fight and kill no matter what anyone does and no matter the outcome. Perhaps just pull civilians out and later them kill each other.

These two posts confuse me. I can't tell what you want.

As a non-hating American, I just can't see any advantage in taking out Assad and leaving what may be worse.

If there were obvious good guys in white hats struggling against obvious bad guys in black hats, and I knew for sure that the black hats were using chemical weapons on the white hats, then I'd support a strike.

As it is, I don't see a good outcome as a result of a strike. You do realize that the US and allies have interfered in a lot of places without a good outcome?

What's the objective here? You can't fire missiles at chemical weapons depots. You can only spank the perps if you know for sure who they are.

And then what?

I would like to see something done to protect the innocent civilians. I don't have an agenda. I thought Bama should have attacked, without warning, Assad's air and delivery capabilities last week. Firing at chemical weapon stock piles is too risky.

The delay and Bama tipping his hand has only given Assad time to put human shields in place and move items where US cannot attack with collateral damage.

Not sure attack is prudent now because it will now be very difficult to take out what needs to be taken out and some warning shot across the bow is beyond stupid and will make us look even weaker.

I think Bama should keep his mouth shut if has no inclination or ability to follow through. But for his imaginary line and his grand standing, most, including myself, would have never been looking for military intervention and we would not have lost so much face in the international community.

A U.S., British and French naval joint task force gathering in the eastern Mediterranean would be impossible not to notice. Assad would have a very early, quick, clear awareness beforehand of any impending bombardment. Consequently, the same would have been happening then as has happened now, just more quickly.

Remember, you're talking about trying to do this by stealth, before Cameron had to go before the Commons or Obama or Hollande decided they needed to go to their respective national legislature on this.

A stealth strike would have been impossible to pull off. Absolutely so.

You're trying to criticize the failure of an operations that would have been a guaranteed failure to begin with.

Best stick to your day job because you're not a naval or military strategist, tactician, planner or operations officer.

[Publicus]

From elsewhere :

And simply because he made a foolish statement last year, he is considering a unilateral attack on Syria just to save face.

So what is it going to do if he does (against we are told against the wishes of the majority of the American people,) go ahead and bomb Libya other than show that he has acted against the use of chemical weapons as he said he would.

Well it will kill more people to start with.

From what I read the rebel forces in Libya include groups from other countries who have stepped in to 'help' including al-Qaeda.

Even if Obama did manage to get rid of the Assad Govt what would take their place?

An al-Qaeda backed govt that would start a purge.

Does it not seem strange that the US is supposed to be fighting al-Qaeda in one, or 2, other countries and backing and arming them to fight a Govt in another?

There is no assurance an al Qaida group or supported group could or would prevail in the present mix and chaos of murderous Islamic militant groups fighting to gain control of Syria. Assad himself can't control or govern Syria and he has what remains of the power of the state at his disposal.

Let's not be leaping to conclusions that are unsupportable speculation at this time or foreseeably.

[hawker9000]

Syria without Assad is a Syria in anarchy and chaos with no one able to be an effective government and perhaps no one group able to exist as a government either for very long or at all.

Syria without Assad is a Syria that is not aligned with Moscow and Tehran.

Syria without Assad effectively dissolves into endless infighting and a long period of internal conflict.

Syria without Assad would remove a negative player in the Middle East and In the world.

Syria without Assad disappears as a player in the Middle East.

I'll buy that.

I won't

This is remarkably prophetic if true. How in the world can you predict these things? Nobody can possibly say WHAT will happen in a post-Assad Syria. If the west helps bring down Assad, and then simply bugs out, I don't see how you can predict anything but chaos in the short-term, and the inevitable rise of some strong man in the longer-term. Now what's the basis for any likelihood that that strong man will be anything other than a militant muslim? And in that melee, why CAN'T Iran, Russia or China nominate some brutish candidate hostile to the west, in need of support and willing to accept proxy status, and boost him into power? Who's to stop them - not the west; we're strictly hands-off when it comes to nation-building these days. I think it's hopelessly optimistic to assume that Syria post-Assad will just descend into some kind of endless soup of militias, mullahs, and mobs posing no threat to Syria's neighbors and the rest of the Middle East, but only to themselves. If no one COULD jump into the drivers seat as you suggest, then we'd undoubtedly see Syria emerge as one big terror camp, with nasty litle terrorist training facilities popping up all over the landscape... It's a big country - lots of room for such things.

Still, this isn't an argument for intervention. As I've said, I think it's no-win. But if there's nothing to be gained, then what's the point of getting involved, even to bring down a reckless thug like Assad? Overwhelming odds that we only add one more element of contention, and focus of international attention and resentment, to an already hyper-flammable mix... for which we're sure to end up being despised in the aftermath, no matter what side we take.

[simple1]

Syria without Assad is a Syria in anarchy and chaos with no one able to be an effective government and perhaps no one group able to exist as a government either for very long or at all.

Syria without Assad is a Syria that is not aligned with Moscow and Tehran.

Syria without Assad effectively dissolves into endless infighting and a long period of internal conflict.

Syria without Assad would remove a negative player in the Middle East and In the world.

Syria without Assad disappears as a player in the Middle East.

I'll buy that.

Syria without Assad equates to a victory by Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States (supported by the US/NATO) in their proxy war with Iran. But what happens to the armed forces and security aparatus. Surely they will not just disband them as they did in Iraq with the well know outcomes of that policy. That would mean Syria, once internally stabalised, remains a threat/player in the region.

I agree with you that if the rebels are able to defeat the Assad regime forces there will be further bloodshed whilst the rebel factions try to sort out who actually rules the country and massive revenge killings, same as when the Ayotallahs came to power in Iran. Not forgetting revenge against Assad's militia who have been carrying out a lot of the "dirty work" of ethnic cleansing and murder of civilian opponents.

Assad has repeatedly stated he will stay in Syria. Dictators do not have a track record of facing the consequences of their actions. Maybe if push finally comes to shove Assad, his family and some close suporters will accept asylum in another country; perhaps Iran?

Syria without Assad means the armed forces and the security apparatus have no leader and become a part of the mix of the many groups fighting to gain control of the national government.

There wouldn't be any nation any more and anyone trying to establish a national government would necessarily fail. They may manage to be in charge for a while, but would be driven out by the other forces trying to gain control of the country. Syria effectively would cease to exist.

The armed forces and the security apparatus would be headless, without a leader or focus. They'd just become another part of the mix of maniacs and murderers, none of which could predominate. Included in the murdering mix would be the present proxy fighters of each Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as other governments to include the West led by the United States.

Fair enough, that's your opinion. My opinion is the major players will not permit a failed state in the center of the Middle East due to flow on effects on Syria's neighbours. One way or the other one of the players will eventually intervene in order to establish a minimum of stability & rebuild the armed forces chain of command etc; an example commentary on the challenges to acheive the objective from a Western viewpoint is at:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=1068

On the other side of the coin, unless a diplomatic solution can be negotiated in the near term, the downside could possibly be a multi-front general war in the M.E.

Edited September 2, 2013 by simple1

[Publicus]

Syria without Assad is a Syria in anarchy and chaos with no one able to be an effective government and perhaps no one group able to exist as a government either for very long or at all.

Syria without Assad is a Syria that is not aligned with Moscow and Tehran.

Syria without Assad effectively dissolves into endless infighting and a long period of internal conflict.

Syria without Assad would remove a negative player in the Middle East and In the world.

Syria without Assad disappears as a player in the Middle East.

I'll buy that.

I won't

This is remarkably prophetic if true. How in the world can you predict these things? Nobody can possibly say WHAT will happen in a post-Assad Syria. If the west helps bring down Assad, and then simply bugs out, I don't see how you can predict anything but chaos in the short-term, and the inevitable rise of some strong man in the longer-term. Now what's the basis for any likelihood that that strong man will be anything other than a militant muslim? And in that melee, why CAN'T Iran, Russia or China nominate some brutish candidate hostile to the west, in need of support and willing to accept proxy status, and boost him into power? Who's to stop them - not the west; we're strictly hands-off when it comes to nation-building these days. I think it's hopelessly optimistic to assume that Syria post-Assad will just descend into some kind of endless soup of militias, mullahs, and mobs posing no threat to Syria's neighbors and the rest of the Middle East, but only to themselves. If no one COULD jump into the drivers seat as you suggest, then we'd undoubtedly see Syria emerge as one big terror camp, with nasty litle terrorist training facilities popping up all over the landscape... It's a big country - lots of room for such things.

Still, this isn't an argument for intervention. As I've said, I think it's no-win. But if there's nothing to be gained, then what's the point of getting involved, even to bring down a reckless thug like Assad? Overwhelming odds that we only add one more element of contention, and focus of international attention and resentment, to an already hyper-flammable mix... for which we're sure to end up being despised in the aftermath, no matter what side we take.

Each you and I have certain givens and see certain liklihoods in the Syrian chaos, just different ones.

You say, for instance, "If the west helps bring down Assad, and then simply bugs out." That's an assumption the West will "bug out," which is an assumption I don't see as one anyone can assert as likely or sure thing.

And, yes, a lot of different things "can" happen or "could" happen.

My scenario is therefore no less valid than yours. It's just that one of us is more likely closer to what's most likely to happen than the other is.

[hawker9000]

Obama's been pretty clear about NOT putting boots on the ground. He keeps saying limited missile strike only. And he hasn't dropped the least little hint about any follow-on strikes. So I think my "given" there is pretty dependable. What's your basis for suggesting even the remotest possibility of something else? I haven't heard ANYONE even SUGGESTING anything different. No invasions. No raids. No shelling. No takedowns. No deck of cards. No economic warfare. Just the missiles. Other than France, the rest of the world seems unwilling to buy-in at ALL (other than some cheap lip-service).

My use of the term "bug-out" is actually a stretch in itself, since we'd really not even be bugging-in, unless that's how you want to characterize some tomahawk missiles.

[Credo]

I've spent some time in Syria and had a few acquaintances who were familiar with the country. Obama's decision to let Congress have a vote on the issue is a wise one. The US has had very little interests in Syria for a very long time and a is one of the last countries that would have a good reason to be involved in Syria. The US is simply not a power broker when it comes to Syria.

With Iran and Russia involved, there is always the danger that things could spiral out of control and whoever does anything had better have some backing should things take a turn for the worse.

Congress will now have to poop or get off the pot.

[Publicus]

Syria without Assad is a Syria in anarchy and chaos with no one able to be an effective government and perhaps no one group able to exist as a government either for very long or at all.

Syria without Assad is a Syria that is not aligned with Moscow and Tehran.

Syria without Assad effectively dissolves into endless infighting and a long period of internal conflict.

Syria without Assad would remove a negative player in the Middle East and In the world.

Syria without Assad disappears as a player in the Middle East.

I'll buy that.

Syria without Assad equates to a victory by Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States (supported by the US/NATO) in their proxy war with Iran. But what happens to the armed forces and security aparatus. Surely they will not just disband them as they did in Iraq with the well know outcomes of that policy. That would mean Syria, once internally stabalised, remains a threat/player in the region.

I agree with you that if the rebels are able to defeat the Assad regime forces there will be further bloodshed whilst the rebel factions try to sort out who actually rules the country and massive revenge killings, same as when the Ayotallahs came to power in Iran. Not forgetting revenge against Assad's militia who have been carrying out a lot of the "dirty work" of ethnic cleansing and murder of civilian opponents.

Assad has repeatedly stated he will stay in Syria. Dictators do not have a track record of facing the consequences of their actions. Maybe if push finally comes to shove Assad, his family and some close suporters will accept asylum in another country; perhaps Iran?

Syria without Assad means the armed forces and the security apparatus have no leader and become a part of the mix of the many groups fighting to gain control of the national government.

There wouldn't be any nation any more and anyone trying to establish a national government would necessarily fail. They may manage to be in charge for a while, but would be driven out by the other forces trying to gain control of the country. Syria effectively would cease to exist.

The armed forces and the security apparatus would be headless, without a leader or focus. They'd just become another part of the mix of maniacs and murderers, none of which could predominate. Included in the murdering mix would be the present proxy fighters of each Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as other governments to include the West led by the United States.

Fair enough, that's your opinion. My opinion is the major players will not permit a failed state in the center of the Middle East due to flow on effects on Syria's neighbours. One way or the other one of the players will eventually intervene in order to establish a minimum of stability & rebuild the armed forces chain of command etc; an example commentary on the challenges to acheive the objective from a Western viewpoint is at:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=1068

On the other side of the coin, unless a diplomatic solution can be negotiated in the near term, the downside could possibly be a multi-front general war in the M.E.

I could foresee Syria disappearing altogether which would not be so bad for anyone. In fact I'd welcome it.

Neighboring states could incorporate parts of Syria into it. For example, the Kurds could become encompassed into to northern Iraq, which would mean Iraq would extend its northwest border into what's now the dissembled Syria. The same regarding the Shia, the Sunny and the like in respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey etc.

A rathole of chaos and instability would be eliminated. Syrians could be incorporated into other countries based on their religious sect, tribal loyalties, geographic considerations, economic interests etc. I don't think Syrians feel much like Syrians any more, if they ever felt Syrian to begin with.

The neighboring countries could then get on with incorporating all the refugees into their economies and societies instead of having them encamped all about as refugees. I'm confident the UN would provide aid and assistance to the incorporating countries along with other global and regional organizations and interests, to include various national governments.

There's a commonality of interest in getting rid of this Syria rat's nest, Moscow and Tehran notwithstanding.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Publicus

[Credo]

In the best of all worlds that might happen, but it won't happen there. Just for a starter, nobody is going to let the Kurds get a foothold anywhere. Turkey won't stand for, Iran won't tolerate and Iraq will be against it.

I believe most Syrians are Arab and the Turks are Turkish.

It will be a big, big mess.

[hawker9000]

I've spent some time in Syria and had a few acquaintances who were familiar with the country. Obama's decision to let Congress have a vote on the issue is a wise one. The US has had very little interests in Syria for a very long time and a is one of the last countries that would have a good reason to be involved in Syria. The US is simply not a power broker when it comes to Syria.

With Iran and Russia involved, there is always the danger that things could spiral out of control and whoever does anything had better have some backing should things take a turn for the worse.

Congress will now have to poop or get off the pot.

Will it still be a wise decision if Congress votes to approve a resolution for the strike? Or only if it says no to him... How does Congressional approval change the calculus in Syria any, except to have given Assad an extra 9 days or so to get ready? Will the strike "hurt more" if it's congressionally approved? I don't see the reason for the "poop or get off the pot" remark directed at Congress rather than at Obama. Congress didn't draw the red line. Congress didn't announce that it was going to strike Syria with missiles. Obama did. And it was Obama's decision to ask for Congressional approval - AFTER he'd done these other things, all on his own. We're not in this mess because of anything Congress did or didn't do. They weren't even in sesson - and still aren't!

Probably academic. I think the odds are against the House approving. I actually don't think that getting off the hook that way will restore any of Obama's credibility though. And the Syrian problem will still linger on, strike or no. I just worry about a hoodlum like Assad being further emboldened by an empty threat from the US president. If some Syrians are angry at Obama for "letting them down", I'm not sure they don't have some right to be.

Edited September 2, 2013 by hawker9000

[Baloo22]

There is another country who's leader seems very eager for a strong attack on Assad's military and believes those military strikes should result in a "regime change" in Syria. Prime Minister Erdogan is very enthusiastic about military action against Assad and insists that it be powerful enough to force a regime change in Syria. Obama should be the one saying to Erdogan; "Fine, you want military action, then the Turkish armed forces need to be at the forefront of that action!"

A quick survey of Wikipedia (not saying it's the final authority) indicates that Turkey has the second largest army in NATO and the third largest Air Force in NATO which includes a substantial number of modern aircraft. Erdogan has no excuse not to use his country's military in the effort.

Edited to add: And Obama has no excuse for failing to press Erdogan for Turkish military forces to be included in Syria strikes!

You don't think that if Turkey leads that will possibly trigger a ground war with Iran and drag NATO into direct conflict; probably why Turkey would be reticent for their armed forces to be actively engaged. NATO has repeatedly stated, as a matter of policy, they do not wish to have boots on the ground.

The Turkish armed forces have struggled for years in their fight with the Turkish Kurds, they do not have a good track record.

No, I do not think that Turkey's involvement in military action against Syria will trigger a ground war with Iran. I have traveled around Hakkari Provice in Turkey. It's not very good ground for a east to west military advance. Very mountainous! I don't believe that Turkey is that worried about Iran invading either. Turkey's military would be able to handle an Iranian invasion there.

What I believe that Turkey's government is more concerned about is terror attacks like car bombings and suicide bombings by Islamic religious fanatics. They have already experienced some of that.

Your reference to the Kurdish insurgency does not hold water. Apples and oranges! That was a long-simmering, low-level insurgency. Not a major military campaign.

The fact remains that if Erdogan is so insistent on there being a major military campaign against the Assad regime, he should put Turkish military assets into the effort. And Obama should press him to do so!

[mania]

A couple of things Congress should do IMHO is

1- Wait till UN investigators have conclusive evidence as to who used the chems

2- poll their districts & ask their constituents what they want/think should be done if anything.

In a functional democracy Governments are representatives of the people

who voted them in. Not dictators off to do as they see fit on their own & later sending the bill

in $$$ & lives back to the citizens.

Edited September 2, 2013 by mania