And next, Syria?

[Delroy Booth]

No one is saying that though, are they? No one here is an Assad supporter or believes that Syrian Baathism is a good way in which to run a country. It's just obvious what sort of intentions NATO has when NATO simultaneously arms a rebellious majority (majority here is questionable in the case of Syria) claiming to fight for democracy in some countries while arming the Saudi and Bahrain militaries while they crush their own pro-democracy protesters.

There's no majority at all, the Syrian govt still has the support of a majority of it's population, at least in a head-to-head with Al-Nusrah and company. One poll I saw had 70% pro govt, 20% neural 10% rebels (this was from liveleak so not to be taken as gospel, obv) but regardless I'd say it's majority that supports the regime - the regime wouldn't have lasted this long without a large chunk of the population backing it. It's always worth remembering that when you hear the hawks try claiming to be agents, duty-bound to act on behalf of the people of Syrian, who are begging for the west to invade their country.

 

[Delroy Booth]

The only way out is a political solution that persuades the Russians to drop Assad.

Perhaps it's not just Assad though, I mean Russia can live without Assad if it has to. I think they could be persuaded to drop Assad, but there's more going on here than who is the president of Syria.

 

[Pickman's model]

Perhaps it's not just Assad though, I mean Russia can live without Assad if it has to. I think they could be persuaded to drop Assad, but there's more going on here than who is the president of Syria.

there's the russian naval base which i suspect they may be rather keen to hang on to

 

[yield]

Perhaps it's not just Assad though, I mean Russia can live without Assad if it has to. I think they could be persuaded to drop Assad, but there's more going on here than who is the president of Syria.

For sure.

Long-ish article by Patrick Cockburn up at the LRB, mostly setting out the shape of the regional context as the war spreads: http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/05/23/patrick-cockburn/is-it-the-end-of-sykes-picot

‘If the enemy attacks us,’ Hossein Taeb, a high-ranking intelligence officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, recently said, ‘and seeks to take over Syria or Khuzestan’ – an Iranian province – ‘the priority is to maintain Syria, because if we maintain Syria we can take back Khuzestan. But if we lose Syria we won’t be able to hold Tehran.’

If Assad goes then renewing civil war in Lebanon, a power struggle in Gaza between Hamas and the salafists and a potential land grab by Turkey. A complete mess.

there's the russian naval base which i suspect they may be rather keen to hang on to

The Russians want a port in the eastern mediterranean. They could be bought off with one in Cyprus?

 

[CyberRose]

Perhaps it's not just Assad though, I mean Russia can live without Assad if it has to. I think they could be persuaded to drop Assad, but there's more going on here than who is the president of Syria.

I think this has more to do with what Iran wants as far as Russia is concerned. So a political solution must persuade Iran to drop Assad, rather than to persuade Russia to drop Assad (altho Pickman's makes a good point about the naval base and I'll add to that by highlighting what a good customer for Russian made weapons Syria is). I agree with probably everyone else here in that I'd like to see a politically negotiated peace leading to democratic elections with a new constitution etc but Iran wants Assad in power, Russia wants Assad in power and Assad wants Assad in power, I can't see any motivation for any of them to agree to what essentially would be Assad giving up power (even if the Baathists were allowed to participate in the elections).

While this gives the "West" an apparent moral high ground to approach the conflict from in portraying itself as proponents of this new democratic Syria, nobody here is daft enough to believe they are anything of the sort. They are just as bad as Russia and Iran in pursuing their own agenda for their own interests which in this case I'm convinced is a weakened Iran (either because of the geopolitical battle with Russia/China for influence in oil rich countries, or to support Israel, probably a combination of the two). As J Ed points out, it's obvious that there is no 'democratic principle' when they support regimes like Saudi or Bahrain, so the only common denominator principle is clearly national interest.

In Syria itself, I think the reason al-Qaeda is such a prominent feature of the rebellion is because they are the only force that has the weapons, training and experience to fight Assad's forces. The rest of the opposition has poor training, limited experience and no weapons. I suppose there's an argument to be made that should the opposition receive weapons etc from the rest this might actually lead to a reduction in the influence of and reliance on al-Qaeda. However, I don't think that's the main argument for not arming the rebels (although it's the easiest/most resonating argument to make). This conflict has gone on now for two years with no end in sight militarily. Simply swapping al-Qaeda for the opposition forces (which I guess we could take as the best case scenario for arming the rebels) would just prolong the current status quo, and with both sides having powerful international powers backing them and offering them an unlimited supply of weapons, it just becomes a proxy war and a massive catastrophe for the Syrian people (and perhaps elsewhere like Lebanon).

It's a conflict I can't see many solutions to but can see plenty of problems which doesn't bode well for anyone involved...

 

[Delroy Booth]

They could be bought off with one in Cyprus?

No chance - for all the links between Cyprus and Russia militarily it's still very much in the western sphere of influence, there's no way they'd tolerate a russian nuclear submarine base there. And Turkish northern cyprus might be tempted if it weren't for Turkey being part of NATO and at war with the current Syrian regime. Russian naval presence in the eastern med and near the Suez would be badly compromised if they lost the base in Syria, and the west and it's allies would have total supremecy in the suez region. Handy that, incase the Muslim Brotherhood try stepping out of line any time soon.

 

[yield]

No chance - for all the links between Cyprus and Russia militarily it's still very much in the western sphere of influence, there's no way they'd tolerate a russian nuclear submarine base there. And Turkish northern cyprus might be tempted if it weren't for Turkey being part of NATO and at war with the current Syrian regime. Russian naval presence in the eastern med and near the Suez would be badly compromised if they lost the base in Syria, and the west and it's allies would have total supremecy in the suez region. Handy that, incase the Muslim Brotherhood try stepping out of line any time soon.

There are also strong political links between the Russians and the Greek Cypriots.
Russia to create Mediterranean fleet to protect Syria.
Pravda. 12.06.2013

Creating a Mediterranean squadron will require locations for its deployment. A naval base in Tartus, Syria, will have to be reconstructed, which is a long process. Rumor has it that the Russian Federation has offered financial assistance to Cyprus in exchange for an army base.

The whole point of creating such a squadron will be lost in case the Americans overthrow Assad. Should this be the case, the presence of the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean will be pointless. The main goal of the Russian naval group in the region is to protect independent states in the region from U.S. military intervention. This is exactly the reason why Russia wants to create its fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.

I don't much about the Muslim Brotherhood or their relations with Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

 

[J Ed]

I agree. Massive hypocrites. Fuelling the crisis. The only way out is a political solution that persuades the Russians to drop Assad. Arming everyone is just making things worse.

Well I hope that Russia doesn't drop Assad, not because I like Assad or think much of Russian foreign policy but because I think that an absence of an effective state fighting the rebels is going to mean the genocide of Syrian Christians, Alawites and other Shia Muslims while the West looks the other way.

 

[teqniq]

...In Syria itself, I think the reason al-Qaeda is such a prominent feature of the rebellion is because they are the only force that has the weapons, training and experience to fight Assad's forces. The rest of the opposition has poor training, limited experience and no weapons....

In relation to the above, worth a read:

Special Report - Syria's Islamists seize control as moderates dither

As the Syrian civil war got under way, a former electrician who calls himself Sheikh Omar built up a brigade of rebel fighters. In two years of struggle against President Bashar al-Assad, they came to number 2,000 men, he said, here in the northern city of Aleppo. Then, virtually overnight, they collapsed.

Omar's group, Ghurabaa al-Sham, wasn't defeated by the government. It was dismantled by a rival band of revolutionaries - hardline Islamists.

The Islamists moved against them at the beginning of May. After three days of sporadic clashes Omar's more moderate fighters, accused by the Islamists of looting, caved in and dispersed, according to local residents. Omar said the end came swiftly.

The Islamists confiscated the brigade's weapons, ammunition and cars, Omar said. "They considered this war loot. Maybe they think we are competitors," he said. "We have no idea about their goals. What we have built in two years disappeared in a single day."....

 

[Pickman's model]

In relation to the above, worth a read:

Special Report - Syria's Islamists seize control as moderates dither

lucky to be able to talk about it

 

[Pickman's model]

Well I hope that Russia doesn't drop Assad, not because I like Assad or think much of Russian foreign policy but because I think that an absence of an effective state fighting the rebels is going to mean the genocide of Syrian Christians, Alawites and other Shia Muslims while the West looks the other way.

supplies the islamists

 

[J Ed]

supplies the islamists

I meant after the war, as in Libya, but yes of course you are right.

 

[Delroy Booth]

There are also strong political links between the Russians and the Greek Cypriots.
Russia to create Mediterranean fleet to protect Syria.
Pravda. 12.06.2013

That's an interesting article, I hadn't thought much of Cyprus til I read it. They're in a interesting position. They're getting squeezed by the EU to make cuts, whilst Uncle Vlad is whispering sweet nothings of financial support in exchange for an army base of some kind. That's a real test of loyalties for Cyprus, they must have an eye on Greece and be thinking they need a Plan B to get out the euro area. Then of course the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus issue might flare up again, with what's going on in Turkey at the moment still to play out, and both in the north and south there's been an increase in refugees from Syria, not on the scale of Jordan or mainland Turkey but significant all the same. All this could destabilise Cyprus, if you were a pessimist (and this thread really is a doom-mongers hangout...)

 

[CyberRose]

Can I just get clarification over the word "Islamist" on this thread? Are people using it to refer specifically to al-Qaeda or in the general sense of the word (i.e. including the Muslim Brotherhood)? If the former, when people say "arming the Islamists" do they mean directly/deliberately or indirectly/accidentally?

 

[TomUS]

There's no majority at all, the Syrian govt still has the support of a majority of it's population, at least in a head-to-head with Al-Nusrah and company. One poll I saw had 70% pro govt, 20% neural 10% rebels (this was from liveleak so not to be taken as gospel, obv) but regardless I'd say it's majority that supports the regime - the regime wouldn't have lasted this long without a large chunk of the population backing it.

How can support be gauged for a cult of personality dictatorship? In the 90s I recall seeing a small fish shop in Damascus with pictures of the ruling family all over the place. Was the owner a supporter of the regime or did he know he had to pretend to be?

If Assad has such support, why hasn't he been able to put down a rag tag disorganized & poorly armed bunch of rebels with his huge military & internal security forces? He's had to call in troops from Hez & Iran.

 

[Pickman's model]

How can support be gauged for a cult of personality dictatorship? In the 90s I recall seeing a small fish shop in Damascus with pictures of the ruling family all over the place. Was the owner a supporter of the regime or did he know he had to pretend to be?

If Assad has such support, why hasn't he been able to put down a rag tag disorganized & poorly armed bunch of rebels with his huge military & internal security forces? He's had to call in troops from Hez & Iran.

Yes because the septics managed it in vietnam and iraq didn't they. And as for afghanistan... TomUS you're thick as two short shits

 

[protesticals]

No one is saying that though, are they? No one here is an Assad supporter or believes that Syrian Baathism is a good way in which to run a country. It's just obvious what sort of intentions NATO has when NATO simultaneously arms a rebellious majority (majority here is questionable in the case of Syria) claiming to fight for democracy in some countries while arming the Saudi and Bahrain militaries while they crush their own pro-democracy protesters.

Why do you keep going on about NATO. NATO is only arming NATO countries.NATO does not arm Saudi and Bahrain because NATO does not produce weapons.

 

[protesticals]

Yes because the septics managed it in vietnam and iraq didn't they. And as for afghanistan... TomUS you're thick as two short shits

He does love Obama which explains a lot.

 

[J Ed]

Why do you keep going on about NATO. NATO is only arming NATO countries.NATO does not arm Saudi and Bahrain because NATO does not produce weapons.

If there is an intervention it will probably be under the umbrella of NATO, as it was in Libya. BTW, I have my eye on you, I think SpineyNorman was right, there's something not quite right about you.

This 'Obama worship' stuff is very weird.

 

[Delroy Booth]

If Assad has such support, why hasn't he been able to put down a rag tag disorganized & poorly armed bunch of rebels with his huge military & internal security forces?.

I suspect without any proxy support the Syrian state would've done exactly this by now. Anyway we've been over this, his internal security forces weren't all that they were cracked up to be, in fact they excerbated the situation and made it worse by behaving like fascist thugs, but once the conflict became a proxy war fought by jihadi's backed by the west the Syrian Arab Army took over things from the Ba'athist security foces and secret police, and they're the ones saving the regime's arse right now.

He's had to call in troops from Hez & Iran.

Yeah and last week the grand mufti of saudi arabia said it was the duty of all sunni mulsim men to fight jihad in Syria. When it comes to "who's getting the most help from outside" the rebels have the honour of beign backed by the Yanks, the British, French, Israel, The Saudi's (the Guardians of the Mosques, no less), Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia etc etc Hezbollahs few thousand militiamen and a few hundred Iranian special forces really doesn't amount to fuck all. Russia's the most important ally, but you neglect to mention that, in favour of regurgitating the same anti-Iran axis of evil shit we've heard for the last decade off these totally discredit warmongering imperialist neocons. Russia matters here far more than Iran, but who cares trying to understand what's going on when we can all sing "bomb iran" with John McCain and his veteran buddies.

 

[protesticals]

If there is an intervention it will probably be under the umbrella of NATO, as it was in Libya. BTW, I have my eye on you, I think SpineyNorman was right, there's something not quite right about you.

This 'Obama worship' stuff is very weird.

If you are spying on me then you are one sad individual. Still if you get your jollies by playing neighbourhood watch that's your look out, you do have something of the Zimmerman about you.

 

[teqniq]

Can I just get clarification over the word "Islamist" on this thread? Are people using it to refer specifically to al-Qaeda or in the general sense of the word (i.e. including the Muslim Brotherhood)? If the former, when people say "arming the Islamists" do they mean directly/deliberately or indirectly/accidentally?

Obviously I can only speak for myself; I think that most news sources and I myself take Islamist(s) to mean Al-Qaeda or it's affiliates. Though tbf the distinction gets a bit blurry especially when you consider that President Morsi in Egypt has ordered the closing of the Syrian embassy. In this respect I feel that the more sectarian nature of events reveals itself. Sunni vs Shia - Egypt is largely Sunni along with Saudi and Quatar; the latter two are financing and suppling the Al-Qaeda types in Syria and on the other side we find the Iranians who are Shia along with Hezbollah.

 

[Casually Red]

Well I hope that Russia doesn't drop Assad, not because I like Assad or think much of Russian foreign policy but because I think that an absence of an effective state fighting the rebels is going to mean the genocide of Syrian Christians, Alawites and other Shia Muslims while the West looks the other way.

they wont just be looking the other way, theyll be directly providing the arms to enable it . Hence all of a sudden those who armed serbian paramilitaries now getting pardons at the Former Yugoslav court thanks to external US and zionist meddling there .

And the facts on the ground are the syrian people dont seem to want to drop Assad. But if they want to they can do so next year at the ballot box, and he has promised to step down if they vote to get rid of him. But then again your arguing against people who called Chavez a dictator so theres fuck all point engaging with the twats.

 

[Casually Red]

There's no majority at all, the Syrian govt still has the support of a majority of it's population, at least in a head-to-head with Al-Nusrah and company. One poll I saw had 70% pro govt, 20% neural 10% rebels (this was from liveleak so not to be taken as gospel, obv) but regardless I'd say it's majority that supports the regime - the regime wouldn't have lasted this long without a large chunk of the population backing it. It's always worth remembering that when you hear the hawks try claiming to be agents, duty-bound to act on behalf of the people of Syrian, who are begging for the west to invade their country.

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

​

​

And all the while relations grow testier between the rebels and Aleppines, for whom many fighters harbor some disdain after the urbanites' failed to rise up on their own against Assad.​

​

"PARASITES"​

Rebel commanders interviewed in and around Aleppo in the past two weeks acknowledged problems within the FSA - an army in name only, made up of brigades competing for recognition and resources. But they laid much of the blame on "bad apples" and opportunists and said steps are being taken to put things right.​

​

"There has been a lot of corruption in the Free Syrian Army's battalions - stealing, oppressing the people - because there are parasites that have entered the Free Syrian Army," said Abu Ahmed, an engineer who heads a 35-man unit of the Tawheed Brigade, reckoned to be the largest in Aleppo province.​

​

Abu Ahmed, who comes from a small town on the Turkish border and like many in Syria would be identified only by the familiar form of his name, estimated that most people in Aleppo, a city of over two million, were lukewarm at best to a 21-month-old uprising that is dominated by the Sunni Muslim rural poor.​

​

"They don't have a revolutionary mindset," he said, putting support for Assad at 70 percent among an urban population that includes many ethnic Kurds, Christians and members of Assad's Alawite minority.​

​

​

 

[Casually Red]

you can see here from this BBC report that Aleppos ethnic and religious make up very much reflects the rest of Syrias, making it a sort of microcosm of the entire nation .

Today, Aleppo's population is made up mainly of Sunni Muslims, most of whom are Arabs but some of whom are Kurds and Turkomans. The city also has the largest population of Christians in Syria, including many Armenians, as well as Shia and Alawite communities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18957096

so if that level of support for Assad admitted to by rebel commanders in Alleppo is anything to go by the 70 percent claim mightnt be all that far off the mark .

 

[Casually Red]

Obviously I can only speak for myself; I think that most news sources and I myself take Islamist(s) to mean Al-Qaeda or it's affiliates. Though tbf the distinction gets a bit blurry especially when you consider that President Morsi in Egypt has ordered the closing of the Syrian embassy. In this respect I feel that the more sectarian nature of events reveals itself. Sunni vs Shia - Egypt is largely Sunni along with Saudi and Quatar; the latter two are financing and suppling the Al-Qaeda types in Syria and on the other side we find the Iranians who are Shia along with Hezbollah.

yes but on the other side we also have a Syrian Arab Army which is predominantly Sunni and prominent Syrian sunni clerics being murdered by the rebels. As well as assassination attempts on Sunni imams in Lebanon who are pro Hezbollah . As are many moderate and non sectarian Lebanese sunnis.
While sectarian rivalries certainly exist in both syria and Lebanon its not a sunni vs shia struggle, no matter how much it suits certain elements to try and turn it into one. If they succeed in that Assad no longer has an army worth speaking of .

 

[teqniq]

Hmmm this is true, say rather Sunni extremists then. But there again I suppose merely by mentioning Al-Qaeda I meant extremists but didn't point it out. The trouble is that you have outside Sunni interests already involved in the form of the financial and material backers.

 

[CyberRose]

This 70% thing seems to have been picked up by quite a few people, as far as I can see it's come from this article:
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

It would appear there is a "NATO report" that says 70% of the population supports Assad (based on the opinions of "Western sponsored activists and organisations" whoever they might be). Does anyone have any further info or other sources for this figure that keeps getting thrown around?

 

[Casually Red]

This 70% thing seems to have been picked up by quite a few people, as far as I can see it's come from this article:
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

It would appear there is a "NATO report" that says 70% of the population supports Assad (based on the opinions of "Western sponsored activists and organisations" whoever they might be). Does anyone have any further info or other sources for this figure that keeps getting thrown around?

theres a Yougov report , funded by the Qatari government, which is fanatically anti Assad, arming the rebels and has been openly calling for a military intervention . IEven it estimated support for Assad at 55 per cent of the Syrian population . And that was in 2012 from a source thats arguably quite biased against him. Since then its clear that many Syrians who might have opposed him have had their fill of first the FSA rebels and then the less corrupt but certifiably maniac terrorist fanatics whove largely replaced them .

http://www.thedohadebates.com/news/item/index.asp?n=14312

so 70 percent looks about right to me when alls taken into consideration

Both Obama and David Cameron would love to boast of that support from their own populations . Even Mr 50 percent Erdogan.

 

[CyberRose]

Even it estimated support for Assad at 55 per cent of the Syrian population.

Actually it didn't. Only 98 Syrians were polled (and even then the sample was only drawn from people who had access to the internet which is 18% of the population).

The people who conducted the survey at YouGov Siraj, the Dubai-based arm of a UK polling company, say the poll was not intended to be representative of all Syrians.

They too say the sample was too low for this and that internet penetration in the country is not good enough.
This is why they referred to "respondents from Syria" rather than referring to "Syrians", they say.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349