China & Russia blocks UN sanctions on Syria

[fgalkin]

Yes, but what do you think will happen when Assad is gone? Will those nice AQ people simply go "thanks!" and leave peacefully?

In fact, they are already doing everything to ensure that when that moment comes, they are the ones who are on top.

I am not blaming the Syrian Opposition for taking all the help they can get. I am just saying that AQ's involvement not a good thing for them, or the Syrian people.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[fgalkin]

Ghetto Edit: And by "not a good thing," I mean "killing scores of civillians in suicide bombings".

Another thing to consider that AQ might well be in Syria because it is actually a safer place for them than the (mostly pacified) Iraq. They are there because there isn't a lot of places for them to go. That means that if they win, they will likely want to stay.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, but what do you think will happen when Assad is gone? Will those nice AQ people simply go "thanks!" and leave peacefully?

You might notice they have distinctly have failed to overrun or destroy Libya in spite of having been active in the country prior to the uprising, and the Libyan resistance having let all the members Qaddafi captured out of prison enmass at the end of the war.

If Assad falls ethnic fighting will be a vastly greater problem then anything al-Qaeda in Iraq can export. The longer the war against Assad lasts the strong Al-Qaeda influence will become because its tactics are to no small degree, effective. All the recent suicide bombings, which have basically completely escaped media attention, have been directed at purely military targets. Mostly Syrian Army checkpoints and base camps in Idlib province, some of the targets were near completely obliterated, others didn't make much sense like one collection of tanks.

Fear of A-Q would be a reason to put more pressure on Assad and knock him out quicker, not to let him fight to the most bitter possible end he can. Wars you know, have a habit of becoming more bitter and brutal over time and we are certainly seeing a textbook case of that in Syria. Though Assad was shelling his own cities with 240mm mortars a year ago anyway. Hard to get very worked out about what Al Qeada is targeting at that point, as long as it isn't overtly civilian.

[madd0ct0r]

Ghetto Edit: And by "not a good thing," I mean "killing scores of civillians in suicide bombings".

Another thing to consider that AQ might well be in Syria because it is actually a safer place for them than the (mostly pacified) Iraq. They are there because there isn't a lot of places for them to go. That means that if they win, they will likely want to stay.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Well, to be bluntly logical about it, I can't see many situations where people who win want to leave.

And if they can't even hold on in other destabilized countries, why would Syria be different?

[mr friendly guy]

Al Queda has to overrun a country before they become a problem? Since when?

[Thanas]

Put this way.

"Assad is a worthless waste of life who should be toppled" is something that terrorists and normal people could agree on. If you're a badly outgunned rebel against a powerful dictator, and some guy with ten years' experience with guerilla war and bombs (terrorist or otherwise) says "I'll fix you up with some huge bombs to help you get rid of him..." I'd say "Yes! Sic semper tyrannis!" I mean, does it really matter from the point of view of desperate rebels whether the offer is coming from the CIA or Al Qaeda in Nowherestan? People in that position take what they can get, and I can't blame them.

How pro-tyranny would I have to be, to deny the legitimacy of the whole revolt by pointing to the participants I like least? I'm reminded of shit like red-baiting: "Oh, the organization allows nasty people to be members, so it's nothing but a big front for nasty people!"

^ For once, I am in total agreement.

[K. A. Pital]

There actually is a difference what sort of groups "participate in uprisings". Afghanistan under Najibullah was a dysfunctional secular state with some semblance of women's rights. After the victory of the Taliban Afghanistan turned into a complete Dark Age theocracy.

So perhaps the composition of the uprising matters not, but the outcome surely does. Though I wouldn't say the outcome of a change of power is pre-determined - it could go either way. Tunisia remained secular, Egypt on the other hand is experiencing a slide towards islamism, as did Libya.

Like Skimmer said, ethnic (and possibly sectarian) violence would be a far greater problem than Al-Quaeda anyway.

[Aaron MkII]

Who the hell are we to deny them anyway? It's a pretty shitty thing to cheer on a group of rebels and then turn around and condemn the choices they make, it's pretty much "you have the right to chose your fate but don't pick one we don't like"

Yeah, that'll help clear up lingering distaste from colonial days.

[Simon_Jester]

There actually is a difference what sort of groups "participate in uprisings". Afghanistan under Najibullah was a dysfunctional secular state with some semblance of women's rights. After the victory of the Taliban Afghanistan turned into a complete Dark Age theocracy.

So perhaps the composition of the uprising matters not, but the outcome surely does. Though I wouldn't say the outcome of a change of power is pre-determined - it could go either way. Tunisia remained secular, Egypt on the other hand is experiencing a slide towards islamism, as did Libya.

Like Skimmer said, ethnic (and possibly sectarian) violence would be a far greater problem than Al-Quaeda anyway.

In Egypt we could predict that in advance- the Muslim Brotherhood has been the biggest opposition to Mubarak for decades, and Mubarak took some pains to make sure that this would be so.

In Syria? Syria was one of the founding centers of pan-Arab secular fascism. I don't think the country has any more "inherent" tendency to be fundamentalist than Iraq does, and the fundamentalist parties aren't really winning in Iraq either.

[Block]

I don't think the country has any more "inherent" tendency to be fundamentalist than Iraq does, and the fundamentalist parties aren't really winning in Iraq either.

Maybe not in the IP, but on the streets of Iraq there's certainly been a slide back towards "fundamentalism," although that word isn't really an accurate description of what these extremists are.

[Simon_Jester]

If I had to bet (and I have no special knowledge, I know that)...

I'd bet on that fading, not growing in strength. Popular support for that is going to be in part a product of a broken social order, the secular system being dismantled. People fall back on the traditional, pre-1950 social order of clan and mosque just to maintain public order.

If the Parliament can fill those shoes, it'll reverse part of the shift and we won't see an Iraqi Taliban- although the government might still look fundamentalist by Western standards, there's a huge difference between a government with repressive law codes and one that has full-blown religious thought police tromping the streets and blowing up historical sites.

[fgalkin]

You might notice they have distinctly have failed to overrun or destroy Libya in spite of having been active in the country prior to the uprising, and the Libyan resistance having let all the members Qaddafi captured out of prison enmass at the end of the war.

Yes, but the Libyan resistance was already armed and organized by tribe- they had far less to offer them.

If Assad falls ethnic fighting will be a vastly greater problem then anything al-Qaeda in Iraq can export. The longer the war against Assad lasts the strong Al-Qaeda influence will become because its tactics are to no small degree, effective. All the recent suicide bombings, which have basically completely escaped media attention, have been directed at purely military targets. Mostly Syrian Army checkpoints and base camps in Idlib province, some of the targets were near completely obliterated, others didn't make much sense like one collection of tanks.

Basically, this. As things stand right now, the most likely outcome is an Iraq-style civil war that will dwarf the fighting in Lebanon. People need to realize that Assad's fall will likely be an end to the violence, but actually the beginning.

Syria basically had the same choice China faced 20 years ago, trading freedom for stability. Until very recently, Assad, evil as he was, was still a better choice than years of anarchy, but now the situation is changing/

Fear of A-Q would be a reason to put more pressure on Assad and knock him out quicker, not to let him fight to the most bitter possible end he can. Wars you know, have a habit of becoming more bitter and brutal over time and we are certainly seeing a textbook case of that in Syria. Though Assad was shelling his own cities with 240mm mortars a year ago anyway. Hard to get very worked out about what Al Qeada is targeting at that point, as long as it isn't overtly civilian.

Given that Assad's fall will likely trigger massive reprisals and massacres, I think the best possible option at this point is a negotiated settlement where Assad continues to rule an Alawite rump state, independent from the rest of Syria which will be ruled by the Syrian National Council, assuming they manage to actually work out a program of some kind.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, but the Libyan resistance was already armed and organized by tribe- they had far less to offer them.

It was also armed and organized by Qatar and a few other people, who were Islamist but not completely psycho islamist. But that element isn't completely lacking in Syria either. So far the count is thirty five known car bombings, and ten suicide bombings but A-Q in Iraq has only claimed responsibility for four of them. It is entirely likely that a lot of this is coming out of Syria itself. People think making bombs is hard and takes time to learn, and it is to a point, but that the time has already passed anyway.

Basically, this. As things stand right now, the most likely outcome is an Iraq-style civil war that will dwarf the fighting in Lebanon. People need to realize that Assad's fall will likely be an end to the violence, but actually the beginning.

That's what happens when you save up everyone's anger since the 1940s and try to rule through fear. It only works as long as people are afraid to die. Then all that is left is the killing part.

Syria basically had the same choice China faced 20 years ago, trading freedom for stability. Until very recently, Assad, evil as he was, was still a better choice than years of anarchy, but now the situation is changing/

You could only honestly believe Assad was a better choice if you thought it was possible for his family to rule forever. The better choice was to have reformed long ago after the nation stopped seriously trying to fight Israel and its own justification for all its repressive measures went out the window. The problem is in the Assad regime, well Assad the elder did seem to pretty well rule with an iron fist, but his son never has, he has many many family members supporting him and questions have abounded for years as to the true level of his power compared to his uncle and a few other people. All those people meanwhile have hands controlling different parts of the economy which makes the whole system extremely hard to reform, as well as just strangling the economy. Something not helped by the absurdity of still having all collage graduates work for the government even though they get tiny salaries and have no work to do. The uprising started from people wanting reform on topics like this, not an out and out attempt to overthrow Assad afterall.

1989 China had at the least, already made movements towards reform, and introduced some concept of an ability to change leadership and avoid completely entrenched power other then that of the party itself. The party in Syria is a real party, one that might well have supported changes at the time while keeping a lid on the place, but nobody tried to do it in favor of a blood dynasty.

Given that Assad's fall will likely trigger massive reprisals and massacres, I think the best possible option at this point is a negotiated settlement where Assad continues to rule an Alawite rump state, independent from the rest of Syria which will be ruled by the Syrian National Council, assuming they manage to actually work out a program of some kind.

If it could happen by magic, yeah. In reality though that has tremendous problems as Alawite rump state would control the only ports and entire coastline, and probably some key bits of the inland railway system giving them a major stranglehold on the economy, while everyone else has most of the military bases and ammunition. The only way it could even start to work is if thirty thousand foreign troops provide a buffer zone and ensure the roads and rail system are open to civilian traffic, it will be extremely lucky if the situation is able to stabilize enough for that to happen in less then several years of fighting. Also don't forget most of the Christians live in-between the coastal Alawite rump and the Sunni majority and aren't likely to be very welcome on either side if it came to a violent partition, and you also have the Kurds in the north east who are highly unlikely to join a Sunni Syria if the Alawite's are already allowed to break off.

[fgalkin]

Yes, but the Libyan resistance was already armed and organized by tribe- they had far less to offer them.

It was also armed and organized by Qatar and a few other people, who were Islamist but not completely psycho islamist. But that element isn't completely lacking in Syria either. So far the count is thirty five known car bombings, and ten suicide bombings but A-Q in Iraq has only claimed responsibility for four of them. It is entirely likely that a lot of this is coming out of Syria itself. People think making bombs is hard and takes time to learn, and it is to a point, but that the time has already passed anyway.

True, but Jawhar's death sheds light on their modus operandi, which is to work together with the FSA, sharing their expertise in exchange for leadership positions, rather than to work independantly. Also, in Syria, Saudi Arabia is involved to a very large degree, so that even outside AQ and its allies, the country is being flooded with armed salafists.

Basically, this. As things stand right now, the most likely outcome is an Iraq-style civil war that will dwarf the fighting in Lebanon. People need to realize that Assad's fall will likely be an end to the violence, but actually the beginning.

That's what happens when you save up everyone's anger since the 1940s and try to rule through fear. It only works as long as people are afraid to die. Then all that is left is the killing part.

Pretty much.

Syria basically had the same choice China faced 20 years ago, trading freedom for stability. Until very recently, Assad, evil as he was, was still a better choice than years of anarchy, but now the situation is changing/

You could only honestly believe Assad was a better choice if you thought it was possible for his family to rule forever.

A lot can happen in 20 or even 10 years.

The better choice was to have reformed long ago after the nation stopped seriously trying to fight Israel and its own justification for all its repressive measures went out the window.

Certainly

The problem is in the Assad regime, well Assad the elder did seem to pretty well rule with an iron fist, but his son never has, he has many many family members supporting him and questions have abounded for years as to the true level of his power compared to his uncle and a few other people. All those people meanwhile have hands controlling different parts of the economy which makes the whole system extremely hard to reform, as well as just strangling the economy. Something not helped by the absurdity of still having all collage graduates work for the government even though they get tiny salaries and have no work to do. The uprising started from people wanting reform on topics like this, not an out and out attempt to overthrow Assad afterall.

Again, you'll find no disagreement from me. Hopefully, the uprising would have scared Assad into reforms, but's far too late for that now.

1989 China had at the least, already made movements towards reform, and introduced some concept of an ability to change leadership and avoid completely entrenched power other then that of the party itself. The party in Syria is a real party, one that might well have supported changes at the time while keeping a lid on the place, but nobody tried to do it in favor of a blood dynasty.

Also true. Assad's government has only themselves to blame for their current predicament

Given that Assad's fall will likely trigger massive reprisals and massacres, I think the best possible option at this point is a negotiated settlement where Assad continues to rule an Alawite rump state, independent from the rest of Syria which will be ruled by the Syrian National Council, assuming they manage to actually work out a program of some kind.

If it could happen by magic, yeah. In reality though that has tremendous problems as Alawite rump state would control the only ports and entire coastline, and probably some key bits of the inland railway system giving them a major stranglehold on the economy, while everyone else has most of the military bases and ammunition. The only way it could even start to work is if thirty thousand foreign troops provide a buffer zone and ensure the roads and rail system are open to civilian traffic, it will be extremely lucky if the situation is able to stabilize enough for that to happen in less then several years of fighting. Also don't forget most of the Christians live in-between the coastal Alawite rump and the Sunni majority and aren't likely to be very welcome on either side if it came to a violent partition, and you also have the Kurds in the north east who are highly unlikely to join a Sunni Syria if the Alawite's are already allowed to break off.

All of these things will still be true in any scenario, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. This will still happen, of course, as the Alawites are already fortifying the mountains in anticipation of holding out for a long time and using the Christians as a buffer between them and the rest of the country. So, might as well make it official now, rather than doing it the hard way with more bloodshed.

Also, thirty thousand troops to secure a border that is less than a hundred miles long? Or do you mean to pacify all of Syria, in which case, it's probably an under-estimate.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[cosmicalstorm]

Yes, but the Libyan resistance was already armed and organized by tribe- they had far less to offer them.

It was also armed and organized by Qatar and a few other people, who were Islamist but not completely psycho islamist. But that element isn't completely lacking in Syria either. So far the count is thirty five known car bombings, and ten suicide bombings but A-Q in Iraq has only claimed responsibility for four of them. It is entirely likely that a lot of this is co....

May I ask you Skimmer, what do you think will happen to Syria right now, generally speaking?

[Sea Skimmer]

True, but Jawhar's death sheds light on their modus operandi, which is to work together with the FSA, sharing their expertise in exchange for leadership positions, rather than to work independantly. Also, in Syria, Saudi Arabia is involved to a very large degree, so that even outside AQ and its allies, the country is being flooded with armed salafists.

Reports of foreign weapons shipments seem pretty exaggerated, most rebels are fighting with literal handfuls of bullets and its typical for units to be 75% unarmed. If they were being flooded with armed support the war would be much more intensive then it already is. The rebel fight in Damascus largely collapsed from lack of ammunition.

Again, you'll find no disagreement from me. Hopefully, the uprising would have scared Assad into reforms, but's far too late for that now.

Yup, and a real shame given that the bastard might have really won an actual free and fair election if he had acted intelligently at the start of this. Instead, throw children in prison and shoot up funerals, brilliance.

All of these things will still be true in any scenario, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. This will still happen, of course, as the Alawites are already fortifying the mountains in anticipation of holding out for a long time and using the Christians as a buffer between them and the rest of the country. So, might as well make it official now, rather than doing it the hard way with more bloodshed.

People have claimed that, they've also claimed more then a few things recently that proved untrue. I'm not convinced they really think they are going to loose yet, at least not at the top levels, random Alawite towns are certainly acting independently. Much will depend on if Aleppo falls to the rebels or not.

Also, thirty thousand troops to secure a border that is less than a hundred miles long? Or do you mean to pacify all of Syria, in which case, it's probably an under-estimate.

To secure a border buffer zone + supply route + refugee camps, 30,000 men easy. Remember the UNIFIL force in South Lebanon, guarding a 50 mile border had a peak of 17,000 men in 2006, and still has 13,500 men today. Frankly that's with a far more stable situation too then anything likely to emerge in Syria. No nerve gas to worry about for example, and UNIFIL is also perfectly willing to let the two sides fight when they want too. A UN force in Syria would have to act a lot more like the intervention in Bosnia and actually attack people who cause trouble. That means it will need to bring a lot more heavy armor and artillery, and air defenses for that matter.