What would an ethical policy toward Syria look like?
What would an ethical policy toward Syria look like?
I really don't know how policy and decision makers in my or your government make or do not make what would seem to be obvious ethical choices. Why didn't Britain and France object more strenuously to Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland? Why didn't the US admit Jews on an ocean liner who were seeking refuge early in WWII? Were these such difficult ethical choices?
I just reread a long Guardian article by on torture in Syria--torture conducted within Bashar Hafez al-Assad's prisons--and am reminded that Bashar's father, Hafez, was responsible for an attack on the city of Hama in 1982 that has been described as one of "the single deadliest acts by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East". Between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians were killed. (Wikipedia) Bashar Assad's score card shows far, far more civilians killed, en masse and one by one by torture. Maybe 250,000? More? Less? Who knows. And here we are not counting dead soldiers fighting the Assad regime--just civilians. "Caesar" smuggled thousands of photographs documenting the condition of the bodies out of Syria.
I've always found it difficult to sort out the various factions in a place like Syria. Clearly some factions are "better" and others "worse", but it seems like the largest faction -- the government in this case -- ends up in the definitely "worse" column.
It is difficult for me to see what advantage Assad has over the opposition. Is it that his regime is a "known devil"? Is it that the Assad Regime has a more or less stable relationship with Israel? Is it that Assad regime was not appallingly cruel and repressive until the last few years? Was Assad "driven" into domestic terrorist policies by the extremist insurgent forces? It seems clear that Daesh would be just as bad, if not worse. If the Russians are for him, must we be against him? Don't know.
I really don't know how policy and decision makers in my or your government make or do not make what would seem to be obvious ethical choices. Why didn't Britain and France object more strenuously to Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland? Why didn't the US admit Jews on an ocean liner who were seeking refuge early in WWII? Were these such difficult ethical choices?
I just reread a long Guardian article by on torture in Syria--torture conducted within Bashar Hafez al-Assad's prisons--and am reminded that Bashar's father, Hafez, was responsible for an attack on the city of Hama in 1982 that has been described as one of "the single deadliest acts by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East". Between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians were killed. (Wikipedia) Bashar Assad's score card shows far, far more civilians killed, en masse and one by one by torture. Maybe 250,000? More? Less? Who knows. And here we are not counting dead soldiers fighting the Assad regime--just civilians. "Caesar" smuggled thousands of photographs documenting the condition of the bodies out of Syria.
I've always found it difficult to sort out the various factions in a place like Syria. Clearly some factions are "better" and others "worse", but it seems like the largest faction -- the government in this case -- ends up in the definitely "worse" column.
It is difficult for me to see what advantage Assad has over the opposition. Is it that his regime is a "known devil"? Is it that the Assad Regime has a more or less stable relationship with Israel? Is it that Assad regime was not appallingly cruel and repressive until the last few years? Was Assad "driven" into domestic terrorist policies by the extremist insurgent forces? It seems clear that Daesh would be just as bad, if not worse. If the Russians are for him, must we be against him? Don't know.
Comments (84)
Everyone stands aside - doesn't sound plausible, nor will this guarantee the destruction of ISIS, which is a priority for the West.
Everyone joins and backs the most progressive opposition in Syria - just look what happened to Iraq when we tried to install a democracy
The Assad regime is destroyed - and replaced with what?? The area still needs a dictatorship, doesn't matter what its name is.
The time for humanitarian and military intervention, which I would have supported, has probably passed by now. My recent worry is that, in light of the mass exodus of ordinary Syrians from their country, there are not really any moderates left in the country, which has become a killing ground waged by various terrorist factions.
I clicked on the "post your own solution" option. My solution has several parts: 1) help the Kurds and Iraqis militarily, i.e. give them more coordinated airstrikes, intelligence, as well as armaments and supplies, and 2) force Turkey, through sanctions of various kinds, to stop funneling IS fighters into Syria and to engage IS militarily along its border, and 3) force the Gulf Arab states, again through various sanctions to a) more seriously engage IS militarily than they have done and b) to accept the refugees from Syria which Europe cannot and should not accept right now.
BS. Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and now Iraq beg to differ, and the Arab Spring shows that there is a popular groundswell of anti-authoritarian sentiment throughout the Middle East. Iran also recently elected a pretty reformist president. More than 5% of Saudi Arabians are alleged to be atheists, too, for example, a number that is probably even higher in reality. And this is despite living in one of the most brutally repressive theocratic regimes on the planet, in which atheism was recently declared to be a crime.
Quoting Agustino
A liberal democracy.
True enough, the options proposed are options in action. BUT... what about an ethical judgement?
My own sense is that we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. Not just the US. There are no ethical alternatives BECAUSE
An ethical action would demand a "good outcome".
An ethical action would require the "means" to achieve the intended good outcome.
An ethical action can't have overwhelmingly undesirable consequences.
An ethical action has to have a long term future.
What was wrong with our two wars in Iraq and one in Afghanistan was that:
An ethical outcome wasn't defined. We were there for... "something" but what, exactly, escaped me -- many others as well.
If we had an ethical objective, we didn't have (or employ) the means to achieve the intended outcome.
In both cases -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and Syria as a present and future case, "effective means" will have very undesirable consequences.
We don't have a clearly defined outcome, means, or way of avoiding highly undesirable consequences.
We could, as somebody suggested, carpet bomb Syria back into the stone age. Or we could just use small nukes (neutron bombs, for instance, and tactical nukes) and eliminate large blocks of both territory and population, including Assad and his group. We could invade, using a huge drafted army, occupy Syria (and while we're at it, whatever else needs a good jerking around) en masse and force them at the point of the gun to rearrange their society.
From what I've seen, a good share of Syria has already been bombed pretty thoroughly. Nukes -- well, there is that small problem of World War IV which would be fought with rocks. Using nukes would probably result in everybody being bombed back to the stone age. We probably won't draft another army for anything except actual self defense, since a draft and a couple of million men and women serving in the dried out Middle East would probably start riots here. The "all-volunteer army" avoids mass opposition.
And no matter what course we took, the background assumption is that we would know how to bring about a long term positive outcome that everybody would be happy with. We know no such thing, as we so vividly demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. We smashed Humpty Dumpty and we couldn't put it back together again.
Economic assistance isn't a guarantee that all will be well forever, but it beats bombing the shit out of people.
I disagree. Actions are determined to be moral based on the motives of the agent, which also happens to be the de facto operating principle of most criminal justice systems in the world today. This does not, however, absolve the agent, whether an individual or a country, from responsibility for the consequences of their actions, even if their motives were pure. It simply means they cannot be held morally responsible; but legally, prudentially, economically, etc, they certainly can and should be.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think implementing democracy is an ethical outcome. As for whether that was clearly defined, I don't know. Perhaps not.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I completely disagree here. In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban, and in the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, had already thoroughly smashed their countries and every semblance of civil society to bits. What the US and the international community tried to do, and are still trying and ought to still try to do, is put these countries back together again so as to prevent their future collapse into barbarism. This entails building a democracy and rebuilding civil society, a rule of law, etc.
Turkey is a quasi religious dictatorship under Erdogan. Lebanon is internally unstable. Israel is a Western state. Iraq is terribly unstable and violent, and the government can do nothing to prevent oppressive regimes from coming to power (like ISIS). The Middle East can only be governed by the fist as its past history shows.
Syria's neighbors really ought to be doing these things, but they leave it to the West and then blame the West when things don't turn out right. How many refugees and how much humanitarian aid have the Emirates, Saudis, and Turks accepted and given respectively compared to Europe? A pittance, that's what. It's amazing how little these theocratic and otherwise Muslim majority states seem to regard their fellow Muslims in the region who are being butchered and forced to flee.
Again - I fail to see on what your assumption that all regions of the world can be governed reliably through democratic means rests on, except on the fact that the West is governed so. Maybe there are some regions where people simply cannot accept such governments.
Humans are not so different from each other in the essentials. I feel the burden of proof rests with you to show that there are some people for whom democracy cannot ever be accepted. Science has thoroughly repudiated biological notions of race, so there is no natural, and therefore no necessary, reason why some humans might be incapable of democratic governance. What prevents some of them from doing so at this moment in time are the artificial and contingent factors of culture and religion.
During the Cold War my country, Finland, would follow utter a mantra when it had to say something about some conflict: "We urge all sides to abstain from violence and solve the problems at hand peacefully". Oh yeah, that's obviously how civil wars have ended: by everybody else hoping that the sides will come to their senses. The actual intrepretation of this mantra would be: "We actually don't give a damn."
Now not giving a damn isn't going to be so bad as simply making things worse as the US is now doing. The present US policy is simply illogical, counterproductive and has no chance of working, yet it surely sounds ethical as it opposes ISIS and opposes other Islamist groups and opposes the Assad regime and favours a democratic multicultural Syria. Yeah, great! It's actually a question of what the US policy actually is?
First the illogical part:
The US wants Assad to be overthrown, but doesn't want the regime to fall into chaos like Libya or for the Islamists to take over. ISIS is a bigger threat to the US, which also Iran, Russia and the Assad regime oppose (even if they concentrate on the other insurgents, which makes sense for them now). With Russia and Iran supporting Assad, there is no chance of anymore attacking Assad. Hence the US isn't bombing Assad. But it is bombing some of those factions who oppose Assad. So Assad is a de facto ally, yet not an ally. And naturally for the US the Muslim Brotherhood isn't a group it could promote. No, the US puts hopes on some Western educated progressive liberals that have been outside of Syria, just like in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq. Too bad that actually these progressives didn't have anything to do with actual politics in the countries themselves, but they could talk the right talk to US officials in Washington. Now Iraq is closely controlled by Iran.
Then the counterproductive part:
This can be seen from the utter and total failure of the US policy to create a "Syrian moderate force" to fight ISIS, but not the Assad-regime in Syria. The objective was first to create a militia of 13 000 men. Then it was dropped to 5 000 men. Actually 120 men were trained. About 50 were sent into Syria. From these about 5 to 4 (by CENTCOM commanders estimate) are now operating in Syria. This has cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Hence that the US didn't move at all against the Assad regime simply has meant that the vast majority of Syrians, the Sunni's, are very dissappointed at the US. Then when the objective is to bomb everything in ISIS controlled areas (where there are no ground troops to actual discover the true targets), it brings even more misery to the people stranded there in ISIS controlled areas. And those factions that could overthrow the Assad regime are considered themselves a threat, possible Jihadists, hence there is no chance for the US to create a force that could overthrow the Assad regime ...especially after Russia has taken to the role to help Assad.
When the demonstrations started, they indeed were against a the despotic Assad regime and people genuinly asked for democracy and something else. But now the old flag of Syria has been replaced by the black flags of the Islamists. Insisting that those who would topple Assad would somehow be those progressive liberals sharing similar visions as Americans simply puts US policy into it's own La-La-land.
What's going to happen?
What is likely to happen to Syria is that it's on the road to have a similar extremely bloody civil war as in Lebanon. In that case too the reason was that a minority (in Lebanon the Maronite Christians) tried to hold to their dominant position on power. Only after huge carnage the sides made peace, but the country still is on the brink of being a failed state.
Hence the truly ethical policy would be a policy that would be realistic and that of minimizing the bloodshed. So have a cease-fire. Have at first the country be split, but still talk about it as a federation. Destroy ISIS by supporting the Kurds and the other insurgents, because these violent loonies will not otherwise stop. The longer the IS survives, the more stronger it will get. You cannot do anymore anything on Assad, because you have Putin there... and face WW3 if you start attacking Assad.
I have to chuckle at Hillary's idea of a no-fly zone; is she ready for a confrontation with the Russians? The U.S. refusal to take refugees is shameful.
Yes but these factors are so entrenched that they cannot be changed, except over very long time, by allowing the process of transition from dictatorship towards more democratic societies to happen.
This is factually wrong, which is all I'll say here. I come from one of those countries - the collapse of the Soviet Bloc was imminent and predictable - if not from the outside, then certainly from the inside.
Also - some of those countries are still governed by "fake" democracies - because people cannot accept a democracy.
Quoting photographerActually my country is doing this also. But what's the end game? Even if the total-disaster Maliki is out, still the Iranian controlled Shiite militias are carrying out their version of ethnic cleansing in Sunni areas in Iraq. The problem is that there isn't any reasonable outcome for Sunni's in Iraq. And are Kurds getting their own country? Of course not.
Quoting photographerLikely Hillary will drop the nonsensical idea when she is the President. And actually even more shameful is that Saudi-Arabia isn't taking any either. The Saudi's apparently fear that the Syrians would create problems in their dictatorship.
And then there is the quagmire in Yemen, which has turned into a Vietnam for Saudi Arabia. Interesting to see the destroyed columns of American produced Abrams tanks and Bradley vehicles there.
(Iranian (?) newsreporter in front of a destroyed Saudi Abrams tank)
I've updated my post. Do you think Thorongil that the collapse of the Soviet Bloc was a planned, or unplanned event?
The Agreement which defined the modern Middle East is a century old, now, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the people who lived (and live) there. The borders were drawn for the convenience of two colonialist western democracies--the British and French Empires.
Yes. But there is also another reason why they would act in shock and surprise - namely that if they didn't, they would be killed. This is an old communist test - tell you some misinformation to see how you react to it - and if you react to it in a way that is against party line ... get rid of you.
Also do you think Eastern European countries today have real democracies, or is democracy used merely as a mask?
Or if you assume to give a mini-state of the small area of Kurdish held territory in Syria? Is this a valid state below?
(Map from last August, so there might be some changes)
(Kurdish population areas by the CIA in 2002)
Yet I do see a possibility of an independent Kurdistan being created. But the real problem is that in order for this to happen peacefully, there ought to be a plan that Turkey would back up. The tension between Turkey and any independent Kurdish actor is obvious.
What will probably happen is some sort of alliance between the Assad faction, whether directly or indirectly, and the West and Russia, which will win out in the end.
Quoting ?????????????
This is a bit confusing for me. I understand that Kurdish organizations aren't talking about now of independence, because of obvious political reasons, but I assume that an independent Kurdish homeland has to be their objective. Or am I mistaken?
Besides, you seem to have some knowledge about the situation. How would you, from your point of view, characterize the various Kurdish or non-Kurdish players here? I have to say I'm not aware what the difference between YPG and YPG/J is (although yes, I could google it up, but like to hear your comments).
I think likely Assad will go after Rojava if and when he has the ability to do that.
Quoting ?????????????I think there is an obvious counterinsurgency tactic in downplaying any moderate factions and actually assisting, perhaps at least not going after them, the most fanatical islamist factions. And Assad himself is the biggest player with the sectarian/ethnic card. Basically the Assad regime has tried to put the ethnic minorities in the situation that without them they will be slaughtered. Hence the non-sectarian opposition that doesn't go with ethnic lines is the number one target for him. The biggest threat comes from factions that could be accepted by the international community.
The Algerian civil war is a perfect example of this. The islamists that won the election but then faced the army coup found themselves fighting both the army and the extremists. And these extremists faded away once the peace was signed with the army. Now of course Syria and Iraq are different, but the way we talk about them is similar. Assad in some views is coming to be "the least bad option"... and that is his objective.
The fact that he's claiming to pursue a unity government with elections within 1,5 years seems to me to indicate he doesn't expect to hold out in the given circumstances and is looking to cut his losses. The absolutism of IS disqualifies them as a possible partner in that process but a unified front against IS would be good for Syrians as most probably the fastest way to security. Indirectly that will benefit the West as it would contain IS at a Western front.
A unified government representing Syrians broadly would also be an authority it would make sense for us to support through military action without military presence. I'd advise against support through military material as the proliferation of weapons anywhere just raises the probability of them being used. Once IS is kicked out of Syria, we should support the planned re-elections and help Syrians stabilise their country in a manner as they see fit.
Well, let's remember that Bashar had lots of time as he came to power in 2000. In a decade nothing yet happened. Now he might have indeed wanted reforms, but simply the whole setup of power wasn't going to be so. The simple fact is that he would have had to give up the family enterprise called Syria. Sunni's and others than people loyal to Assad would have had to come into power. When your father dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood as he done, there was no real way to hand off power and think that everything will go very civilized. In a way, the Assad regime was ready for this civil war.
Maybe an exchange of family members would be the way forward then. Like how they used to do it in the middle ages. Take his children as "proteges" and if he doesn't deliver on his promises execute them. Oh wait... that isn't quite ethical by modern standards any more. Dammit! :P
Or if you want to get the Nobel-peace prize, wait until the sides are so tired and uncapable of anymore continuing the fight, that they are ready for some kind of peace, then make them shake hands. That might take still some years, but perhaps can happen earlier, even if it's unlikely.
The Assad regime is now collapsing. The Russians seem to be withdrawing and the Russian embassy stated that Russian citizen should think about leaving:
Hence the question that @BC stated in the OP will be very important, even if now in a different situation. Can a new Syria emerge or will it become even more failed state that it has been, something between Somalia and Libya, or worse? The backers of Assad, Russia and Iran, have had their problems elsewhere and Hezbollah isn't there to consider. Likely the next round of various states backing various groups will emerge to fight for power in Syria. But of course, things might also stabilize. The real fear is that many might be more happy to have Syria as a failed state.
But to the Assad regime and the Assad family, good riddance.
If my memory is correct, we fucked around in Syria back during Obama's presidency and it went badly. We also went into Iraq, destroyed a nasty regime, started the ISIS insurgency, and sent hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe. And let's not talk about Gaza. Of all the places we've screwed up, the Middle East is the worst except for southeast Asia. We recently had a thread - In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism - in which neoconservative bonehead hawks proposed sending US troops into China and India to set things straight. There's only so much we can do and when we do it, we generally make things worse. No, I don't consider you a neoconservative bonehead hawk - a bonehead perhaps, but not a neoconservative.
It was unclear to me if they might somehow hold on to Homs or not, but given Iran is also openly evacuating its officers and that Assad's family has reportedly fled to Russia, if does seem like it might really be over.
From what I understand the current situation makes defending Damascus extremely difficult, so barring some major reversal Assad would have to flee to Alawite stronghold areas with more defensible geography and people actually motivated to resist. But it's hard to see how, given his failures, he would actually remain the leader of such an Alawite rump state.
I'd really hate being thought of as a neoconservative! Ugh, disgusting.
Quoting T Clark
As Billy Joel said, "We didn't start the fire".
My view at the time was that our invasion of Iraq was a bad idea because we (Washington policy makers, military planners, etc.) do not have sufficient expertise to take apart and then put back together a complex middle eastern nation. It wasn't thought through nearly far enough. What happens after "shock and awe"? Iraq wasn't in great shape to start with (economically) and making a battlefield of the place didn't improve things. Perhaps we (people in the Beltway) couldn't tell shit from shinola when it came to the local politics of Iraq.
We didn't create the ISIS insurgency. That is an opportunistic infection in the body politic. We created the wound in which the infection fulminated. The US didn't create its own fundamentalist Christian Nationalist wing nuts that have crazy plans, and I'm not sure that anybody knows precisely what to do with them. Maybe El Salvador's approach to gangs? Just round them all up and put them in well guarded prisons? But then what? They aren't going to turn into gentle lambs in there.
I've sort of forgotten what the lines in the sand were all about back in Obama's administration.
I do deeply and earnestly hope that we do not decide to take apart and rebuild Syria. It may be a mess; it may be the victim of insane politics; but... Our leaders, less now than before, do not have the facts, insight, long-range policy capacity, and more besides to intervene in Syria. It might very well be a shit hole, but that doesn't mean we know how to fix it.
This is what clever people call a distinction without a difference.
Quoting BC
It is a mess, but it is not, for the time being, our mess. We have plenty of other messes around the world and we don’t need any more right now.
Sorry, I didn’t realize this was a nine year old thread. It’s possible you have become a neo-conservative since then, or that if you were one then you no longer are now.
a penny's worth smile
Two credible commentators have given the line that Assad fucked up really badly in the international field, both Turkey and Saudi-Arabia were willing to talk to Assad, but Assad didn't budge. So they let the rebels loose. Hezbollah reeling from the fighting with Israel, and Putin fixated on Ukraine, Assad's friends don't seem to be coming for support. The rebranded "Al Qaeda-light", the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is at least communicating the right things. They pledge that they won't kill Assad regime fighters if they surrender, they are talking about even dismantling them when this is over and then accepting that Syria is a multiethnic state. The strategy is basically mimicking the Taleban offensive.
The cacophony of Syria has to be that while the Russian air force is attecking the HST, then US aircraft are also operating in the country and attacking Iranian backed militias. So both Russia and the US are fighting in Syria, just like the statement from four days ago from CENTCOM shows:
Referring to defeating ISIS is whimsical here, because the idea of ISIS going around with MLRs, tanks and ACPs is crazy, as the group has basically gone underground and holds tiny patches of territory in Syria. But hey, seems as for long the US is just "defeating ISIS", it's OK to have such a situation in the country. But this is putting proxy-warfare to the tip of the point where you cannot say it's just "proxy warfare". Yet so it has been since Trump's first administration.
American A-10s attacking ground target over Syria from a few days ago:
Comparison of what the situation was roughly like for the past long while to since a week and a half ago. Reminds me of the collapse of the Iraqi military when ISIS sprang from Mosul to the Baghdad suburbs, or the ANA when the US pulled out.
Two axes of advance threaten to cut off Damascus from Russia's naval bases, and since they are heavily reliant on them for material this would essentially encircle the Assad regime. The lines of communication will be cut if they take Homs, but they might lose them anyway. Not to mention the population there isn't particularly loyal.
I wonder if this gives Putin any pause as he continues to push low morale conscripts into frontal assault with civilian passenger cars and golf cart style ATVs. Things often break all at once.
An official Russian announcement discussed "meeting with the legitimate opposition to discuss Syria's future," which probably says "it's over" even more than reports that Assad's family has fled to Russia.
Iranian-backed militias have been firing on US bases there and have at times injured US soldiers. According to Central Command these were show of force flights, which doesn't involve attacking anything. They could be lying, but those are very common. Basically, if someone heads your way you buzz them to make them rethink their actions.
At least on the video footage, you could hear the ominous and very distinctive sound of the GAU-8 gun going off. That's more than show of force.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Well, the Russian people think of those going to the front as contract soldiers, as a volunteer force that has chosen the pay for the risk.
Yet also financial problems to mobilize troops has been a problem for Assad also. He has had to demobilize part of the Syrian Army as there simply hasn't been the ability to pay them. Even if Assad is now promising a 50% pay increase, this might be far too late.
It's also noticeable that the insurgents themselves haven't fought each other (Kurds vs Sunni Arabs).
Videos of soldiers walking away from their posts in Damascus, statues of Assad's father being torn down not far from the centers of regime power, and the presidential palace is being looted.
...and now a mob appears to have publicly hung one of Assad's family members (unconfirmed). I assume he has left at this point.
After half a million people have died in this civil war, I have no sympathy for the gangster family that has ruled Syria.
What countries are more important are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi-Arabia. And naturally Russia, which still has troops in Syria. It seems how they handle this situation is crucial. The US is just a looker on the side.
The most ethical policy would be for all foreign powers to withdraw from Syria, to respect it's sovereignty, help it restore it's institutions and help in the reconstruction and not to support their own proxies as countries did in Libya. Libya is a case example WHAT NOT to do in this kind of situation. In Libya you have already seen nominal allies, NATO member states, supporting different sides. My real fear is that some outside actors will want the Syria to stay as a failed state, where they can have influence on a tiny area held by their proxies. The real question is, is the World capable of coming together with sound policies in this situation?
That Assad falls shows just how the US has totally failed in it's policy towards Syria. First Obama failed after drawing a red line in the sand which didn't mean anything as he hadn't consulted US allies first. Then trying to assist Syrian rebels was a total farce as the Americans, consistent of their GWOT objectives, seem to have feared far more those opposing Assad's regime than Assad himself. And then it has declared that it's only in Syria to fight the tiny remnants of ISIS.
Yet I think Americans don't even notice how adrift their policies in the Middle East are from if the only consistent and clear policy is defending Israel. If that's the only policy, then why and what are they thinking of doing in the larger area where everything isn't about Israel?
At such a happy time of an overthrow of a dictatorship, these question should be quickly answered and obvious pitfalls have to be avoided. Assad kept control of minorities like his on Alawite sect with the fear that they would face genocide if they wouldn't stand by him. It's the moment to show that it won't go that way. There exists a way to have proper justice: either in the legal system of Syria or then in institutions like the ICC.
Article 1 of the UN Charter:
- "The purposes of the United Nations are... to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..."
Self-determination is something that some nations seem to appreciate differently.
If we really believed in what the UN stands for, and didn't treat it like rubbish.
If country or a region collapses in a way that it cannot take care of it's borders, doesn't have a functioning goverment and the internal strife leads to violence, otherwise quite friendly neighbors and Great powers seem to become these vultures circling around.
To say that this just because people in the Middle East are so, we should notice how actually universal this is.
Just to take an example I know, when my country, Finland, became independent after the collapse of the Russian Empire: a) Sweden occupied for a brief moment the Åland Islands (only to pushed away by Imperial Germany), b) There were both French and British troops in Finland (a few, but still), c) Finnish volunteer forces tried to stir up secession also in Eastern Karelia, d) Finnish volunteers fought in Estonia for Estonian independence.
When the Soviet Union collapsed and when the Baltic States gained their independence again, Finnish volunteer reservist when to train the new Estonian army while there still were Soviet troops in Estonia. Even a former head of the Finnish Military Academy (an institution that trains all Finnish officers) went to train the new Estonian military. When he asked the government would this be OK, he got a very Finnish answer: "Of course we cannot say anything in public, but it's great that you go!". Now this just shows that once a country is destabilized even in Europe, but then on the other hand, just think of war of Independence of the US. Notice that there was the French intervention into what basically was a British colonial war. And later you had a continuation of the conflict in 1812, which didn't go so great.
Now when 50 years of Assad family rule is over, the internal strife can continue continue as the country is already in pieces. Also in the case of Syria, the neighboring countries of Syria do have legitimate concerns for the country. Lebanon has a million refugees, Jordan has also and Turkey has about three million Syrian refugees. Then the country is engaged in a long insurgency with it's Kurdish population, which we have views about, which obviously has an effect on this equation as large parts of Syria are now controlled by the Kurds.
There's a lot more going on behind the scenes. The obvious question to ask is how a regime that withstood years of heavy western pressure suddenly crumbles like a crouton, because that already fails the common sense test.
The most-likely culprit here seems to be Erdo?an, and there are rumors that Assad due to his strong dislike of Erdo?an was getting in the way of a deal between the Turks and the Russians over Syria.
Alexander Mercouris goes deep into the subject in his latest update.
What is certainly an aspect worth noting about this event is that an ideologically neutral Syria is now (at least on the surface) controlled by jihadi extremists - a development that will probably be very displeasing to Israel, though there are some upsides as well.
Thanks for the Pro-Kremlin Putinist line. :wink: :up:
(No seriously, naturally the Russian line here is interesting.)
Yet I think that unlike mr Mercouris claims, I think that Russia has indeed been involved in Syrian politics and has supported extensively the Assad regime right to the collapse. :snicker:
(I think with claims like that everybody ought to understand to what camp mr Mercouris belongs to.)
Quoting Tzeentch
If an army doesn't have the will to fight, then it will collapse. Totalitarian dictatorships fall in the end rather quickly once people understand it's over. Who would stand up for family that has clinged on power ruthlessly and extremely violently, milked the country like a mob family, and then flees to Moscow with it's millions? Once the panic sets in, when the officers suddenly change into civilians clothes and flee, do you think the soldiers will continue the fight to the death? Nope.
Above all, the Syrian army wasn't good from the start as it inherently was weakened by the Assad dictatorship itself:
This was a huge humiliation for Russia. Putin really messed up with this one. Something like the collapse of Afghanistan was for the US. The parallels are obvious with the exception that Putin never gave a stab in the back to Syria as Trump did with the Doha agreement with the Taleban to the Afghan Republic. In the end, the Russian Air Force was the last one to fight for the Assad regime (that mr Mercouris got right).
Well, he said that
And just look at the guys videos! Positive commentary on Russia, Russia and Russia. This guy is really a spokesman for Putin's Russia. Just look at his videos. Always positive on everything that Russia does, never even the faintest criticism of Putin.
Here are wonderful picks from this Putinist to prove this:
First he, of course, attacks Navalny on many videos, just like this one:
Navalny, the fraud, was "allegedly" poisoned and so on...
This one is great: Invasion Hoax Disintegrates as Scholz Meets Putin, Russia Winds Up Belarus/Crimea Drills
"A warscare based on Nothing!" comments Alexander the Putinist.
Alexanders take on then when Russia attacked: "The fault is the West!" Then blames Ukraine for antagonizing Russia. And comments that now Russia will overrun Ukraine!
And then his commentary on the war in Ukraine. Huge losses for Ukraine! Russia makes huge advances! Does this commentator discuss military failures or Russia when they happen? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Just looking at the bullshit commentary he gives, it's obvious that this is a Putin shill parroting the line that Kremlin wants him to speak of. So I'm not jumping to accusation, see for yourself.
This is just the umpteenth attempt at disqualifying opinions that disagree with your own by accusing others of partisanship.
It has become a bit of a pattern with you.
I'll just say it again:
It's just whimsical to say that a guy that has now since the start of the war said how Ukraine is collapsing and how victorious the Russians are would be something other than a shill.
But please inform us when the guy has criticized Putin. Does he criticize Putin for attacking Ukraine? Or for assisting one of the most bloodiest tyrants in Syria? We are now seeing what the reality of the Assad regime was.
This above is what Putin defended until it collapsed. And now Putin gives safety to this mass murderer.
On the other end of that argument you would be disqualifying the entire western media. :lol:
At some point you'll have to accept that when people have a different opinion it doesn't automatically makes them a shill for the other side - that's called growing up.
At the end of the day you're just unable to cope with the fact that various Europeans and Americans are criticizing their own system for all its faults.
You apparently have no lens to view self-criticism by the system you are a part of as anything other than shilling for the other side.
You are clearly stuck in a tribal mindset.
Alse we also shouldn't forget that the genocidal regime that was the Assad regime, which killed hundreds of thousands of people, justified it's genocide by saying it was "fighting against the islamists". The Assad regime captured the Alawites and other minorities by similar narrative. Also Ghaddafi portrayed every opponent of his to be part of the Al Qaeda. And seems you are promoting this view. Well, we will see what happens in the future. Yes, everything can indeed can go to hell in a handbasket.
Yet I see no reason to promote dictators like Ghaddafi and Assad to save us (or the US) from the ghost of Osama bin Laden.
* * *
This whole thing btw will be a real pain in the ass for Tulsi Gabbard, the former democrat now turned a Trumpist, as she faces congressional hearings. The problem is that she just loved, or so much understood, president Bashar al-Assad as a so-called "realist".
The thinking of Tulsi Gabbard is the reason why the US loses wars and why this thinking leads to self defeat. And thus every Putinist will promote Gabbard. Now I don't think she is taking money from the Russians (even if that might be a possibility). Likely it's just the fact that when you are against your own country (meaning that you are overtly critical about anything your country does), then you will talk the same narrative as the enemies of your country. When everything happens because of the evil doing of the US, you will repeat the narrative of Russia, North Korea and Iran. And actually of Assad's former Syria.
When listening to Tulsi, she is the best thing ever that could happen to Putin, especially if she will lead the US intelligence community.
It relied heavily on Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies to survive. Iran and Hezbollah just lost a lopsided war against Israel. Israel, holding all the cards, also forced Hezbollah to sign a cease fire forcing them to withdrawal behind the Litani in Lebanon while still giving Israel carte blanche to bomb them with impunity in Syria if they moved assets there. Iran meanwhile, had ample time to realize their Russian licensed air defense systems are worthless.
Russia meanwhile has lost the better part of a million men in Ukraine and is down to carrying out assaults in passenger cars. Neither could help the Assad regime, who had also demobilized large numbers of troops because they were bankrupt and weren't paying their current troops, who also resented a corrupt, authoritarian, brutal, regime of minority rule.
No conspiracy required really. Assad held on due to a heavy commitment of Russian and Iranian resources and because IS jumped on the scene and took a serious chunk out of the rebels, gobbling up a good deal of their territory and assets, while at the same time drawing the ire of the world and sparking a huge continous air offensive on them by the US and most of the Arab world.
This isn't any more surprising that IS taking Mosul because the Iraqi military routed and driving into the Baghdad suburbs within a week, or the ANA routing in the face of the Taliban. Poorly paid and trained conscripts facing a motivated opposition who don't have much faith in their state tend to rout eventually. A lesson Putin might eventually learn as Tsar Nicholas did.
Her confirmation hearings will be wild. She should go on a double ticket with Kash Patel. ‘The enemy within’ will be more than Trumpian hyperbole, although of course, he will be responsible for it.
I'm not saying that they may have stopped this eventual outcome, but rather I'm questioning why it crumbled like a crouton, which is ahistorical - armies don't just evaporate under normal wartime circumstances.
By running Aleppo, Syrian rebels seek to show they are alternative to Assad
And the BBC:
From Syrian jihadist leader to rebel politician: How Abu Mohammed al-Jolani reinvented himself
:rofl:
No. This is quite historical. When there is nobody willing to fight for something, then the whole thing simply comes down. Armies can simply unravel and the soldiers just walk away. It has happened many times in history.
It can happen to whole states even without a war. This happened with the Soviet Union. People simply didn't believe in it. It's people like Putin that have to see a culprit behind this.
And this is something that the so-called "realists" are so surprised to see when authoritarian tyrannical regimes falter. The regimes looked to be so in control just moments earlier.
This is obviously not normal, nor a spontaneous 'uprising'.
Except for:
Afghanistan 2021
South Vietnam 1975
Iraq 1991, 2003, and 2014, see below:
Nazi routs following the Western Allies landings in northern and Southern France, which stopped only when logistical concerns slowed the advance and continued following new offensives with a massively disproportionate casualty rate.
Korea following the Chinese intervention, where the US-led UN force had air, armor, and artillery superiority and had just routed a well-equipped North Korean force.
The extremely rapid fall of France in 1940
The collapse of Russian lines in 1917
The collapse of Russian defensive efforts and routs in 1941, where good order was only re-established outside Moscow and with St. Petersburg under siege.
Or there is the rapid defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War, etc. etc.
There was a fight in Syria, just not much of one. The rout wasn't particularly different in kind from that the ANA suffered without US support, and that was also in a context where a stalemate had held by agreement with lower levels of conflict for a long period.
Certainly HTS benefited from Turkish support, as other groups that helped depose Assad benefited from US and tacit Israeli support. But the collapse, it would seem, has far more to do with the regimes own issues.
Also, they initially held on a bit, halting the advance at Hama and Homs. Some foreign support began to come in but the US stopped Iranian aligned forces from transiting westwards while Israeli air strikes continued to hit Iranian positions around the country. This probably helped tip the scales towards total collapse, but only because it made it abundantly clear that foreign support wouldn't be forthcoming (and even if it was sent that it wouldn't reach its destination). But at any rate, the ground lines of communication between Syria and Iran were severed quickly by rebels anyhow.
Exactly.
In many of these conflicts in countries that lack social cohesion and strong institutions, something like a collective "defending your country" won't happen. Why would put your life to danger for someone like Assad and his gangster family? Yet then there's the obvious question, do you think you can survive? Is your side capable of beating the opponent? Militaries are part of the society and they mirror the strengths and the weaknesses and also the structural problems of the society.
Above all, these armed forces don't embrace individual ability and soldiers and officers taking the initiative when it's needed, but simply total loyality and obedience to those in power. Promotions aren't based on merit, but on connections and loyalty. This all creates an atmosphere where people simply lie. The underlying reason for the crippling inefficiency that the armed forces itself pose a threat to power as totalitarian systems can easily be overthrown in a military coup or a palace coup. You can simply bribe officers commanding units or tribes to lay down their arms. Or as HTS did, simply tell that those who lay down their arms won't be killed.
What should also be noted is just how these issues can be changed. The performance of Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war was telling: Hezbollah could act in small teams with the NCO-level using initiative. (That war didn't go so well for Israel, hence the IDF and Israeli Intelligence went back to think what went wrong and how to engage Hezbollah the next time.) Yet the best example of this is the Ukrainian armed forces or 2014 and the Ukrainian armed forces of 2022. In 2014 the admiral of the Ukrainian navy simply changed his job for a position in the Russian navy. That should tell all: not just surrender, but willing to join the ranks of the attacker. And this among other stuff then lead Putin to believe that the Ukrainian armed forces would be a house of cards as it had been in 2014, especially with the intel he was served was the ass-licking that dictators get when the want something. With the intel Putin had in 2022, a Blitzkrieg like taking Czechoslovakia was the benchmark for success of a "special military operation". Hence obviously armed forces, just like societies, can change.
Let's not fool ourselves here.
Finally Erdogan got enough of this and let HTS go on the offensive alongside the Turkish sponsored Syrian National Army. And then the house of cards that was the Syrian Arab Army collapsed, even if there was some actual fighting.
Now Israel has made about 500 strikes and the US 75 strikes in Syria. Idea is to destroy everything that is left from the equipment of the Syrian armed forces. It had for example about 3 000 tanks at the start of the war, and likely has lost well over half of that during the war.
Very likely the idea will to make Syria a state like Lebanon or simply keep it as a failed state. Israel has been far too successful now to pause here.
It should be worth wile to examine critically at how the Assad regime got understanding from many people in the West as a bulwark against jihadism and basically a victim of the West. Yet it was Bashar al Assad that pushed volunteers into fighting the US in Iraq and then, in a move quite similar to Algeria, even let out jihadists to "tarnish the repution" of the opposition fighting against him.
See: The role of the Islamic State in the Assad regime’s Strategy for Regime Survival: How and Why the Assad regime Supported the Islamic State
Similar strategy was applied by the Algerian military junta to crush it's opposition in the Algerian civil war, where the regime successfully used the "jihadists" to fight it's opposition. Once the regime won, the "extremists" where nowhere to be found. Yet for some reason it seems that many fall for this and think that such murderous regimes are far better than anything else. Many critical of the US seem to defend these regimes with the idea that a) better them than anybody and b) these people simply need a "strong hand" to be guided. And of course that the only deep state exists in the US and usually everything is fault of the US.
And it seems that the US is going to put one such person to be put into an important intelligence service position, where her judgement, knowledge and discretion are of the utter importance. I cannot get over the sheer ignorance.
Allow as many of the people of Syria as possible to answer the question, "Right now, today, what would be of the most help to you?". And whatever they answer, help them get it.
Syrian security forces accused of killing hundreds of civilians
Remember when the western news outlets were trying to white-wash the image of whatever jihadi lowlife has taken over control of the country with our help?
As the objective likely for the neighbors is to make Syria a failed state and as weak as Lebanon, I'm sure that someone will start funding the Alawites. Likely Israel, because why not.
And what will Iran do now? That's a good question too.
This isn't anything new, actually. When Finland got it's independence and after it fought it's War of Indpendence/Civil War, it had a brief period of Swedish forces occupying Åland Islands, then German troops in the South assisting the Whites, few French and British troops up in the north and once when Germany lost the war British Navy actively operating against Bolsheviks in the Gulf of Finland. (In fact post WW1 era in Eastern Europe is one of the most crazy times ever as all the great empires, Germany, Austro-Hungary and Russia had collapsed.)
A weakened state attracts neighbors to come in as vultures. But once the victim gets up on his feet, the vultures won't attack you.
The real question here is, if Syria will be able to get its act together and finally secure it's borders. The Alawites might not be the only problem, then there's the Kurds up in Northeastern Syria.
But that's none of Iran's concern. Its involvement in the Levant is purely linked to countering Israeli influence. There's no better outcome for Iran than if Turkyie (or perhaps somewhere down the line, Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia) were to voluntarily take over that task.
Iran is in the driver's seat, enjoying strong alliances and a massive power vacuum in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which is all it needs to expand its power to that of regional hegemon.
Pretty much the only thing that can throw a wrench in the wheel is Israel (and the accompanying threat of a US invasion). If Israel is preoccupied with threats nearer to its borders, such as IS-like entities in Syria or an expanding Turkyie, Iran wins.