America's Responsibility In Syria?

[cadbrowser]

Normally this type of conversation is way outside of my expertise; but I couldn't find any recent threads to discuss ideas and etcetera on different views for the title above.

One thing that really has been sticking out in my mind is that "Crossing the Red Line" ultimatum given by Obama in regards to the use of chemical weapons by Assad's gov't against the rebels (and its civilians). Albeit that there was no specific retaliation given as far as what the response would be. I understand that the majority of the US public (64% I think) is against any sort of military involvement of the US in Syria (paralleling Afganistan, Iraq, and etc).

Sen. John McCain wants the US to enforce a no-fly zone to aid the rebels; but the downside is that plays into the possibility of the US inadvertently aiding known terrorist organizations.

What if the US allowed Israel to conduct the no-fly zone? Allowed or "contracted" them to take out chemical plants, storage, and launch facilities? Again, I am no expert and I am probably talking out of my ass here; but just what would the ramifications be? I mean, the US would be involved by proxy, but it would probably help end Assad's grip. I think Israel is more than capable of taking care of the job on this.

Thoughts?

[LaCroix]

What would be the outcome of the US contracting Israel to attack Syria?

Most probably a smouldering wasteland, formerly known as the middle east. I don't think Isreal waging a proxy war for the US would fly too well with the neighboring nations. And without massive involvement of the US, Israel won't be able to do this. Apart from a population who certainly won't be interested in doing a serf's work, the last time they went to war (Lebanon), against massively outclassed opponent, they performed "lackluster" (and if I recall correctly, ran out of missiles and bombs after a couple of days, needing to procure them from the US in a dash to keep their airforce going). That was against Lebanon, which they outnumbered 10:1 in aircraft frames. Now Syria has parity and superiority in numbers, and most of these forces can, and will, be redirected against Israel at whim. That is not including eventual allied states and independently founded groups also doing their part (if Israel were the one to beat up, a lot of groups will join in happily). This will end bloody, very bloody.

Also, strategically, Israel is completely surrounded by non-friendly nations, has only a handful of meaningful ports and is almost completely dependent on external supplies. Without open support and lot's of supplies by US forces, they won't last long if open war breaks out (especially since it doesn't help their goals, at all, and their population will probably not support it).

[cadbrowser]

I guess I hadn't realized how lackluster Israel has gotten since the Six-Day War when they easily defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in '67.

How can Syria have superiority in numbers agaisnt Israel when they can't even take out some "internal rebel terrorist" and have to hire Hezbollah? I guess I'm missing something here.

[Simon_Jester]

1) Syria has plenty of jets and tanks, but jets and tanks are of limited use in suppressing a massive popular rebellion. They are very useful in stopping an Israeli invasion, though. Syria's great weakness, like a lot of dictatorships, is a lack of politically reliable enforcers to keep the populace under control. There aren't enough goons on the goon squad willing to break the heads of civilian rebels, which is a whole different problem than finding enough artillerymen and pilots to stop a foreign invasion.

2) On a side note, getting Israel to enforce a no-fly zone might just end the civil war... by convincing all the religious fanatics fighting Assad to join forces with the government. Oops.

3) You will note that during the Six Days' War, Israel launched a surprise attack against an enemy that was tactically unprepared for combat, and came up with a number of useful gimmicks (like increased water rations for desert fighting). None of this necessarily reflects permanent military superiority.

4) It also does not help that the Israeli military has had very little to do for the past 40 years except occupying the Palestinian sectors, which doesn't require any real tactical sophistication in open warfare on their part.

[Alyrium Denryle]

One thing that really has been sticking out in my mind is that "Crossing the Red Line" ultimatum given by Obama in regards to the use of chemical weapons by Assad's gov't against the rebels (and its civilians). Albeit that there was no specific retaliation given as far as what the response would be. I understand that the majority of the US public (64% I think) is against any sort of military involvement of the US in Syria (paralleling Afganistan, Iraq, and etc).

That is because a large portion of the American population is comprised of spineless moral cowards who will tolerate a war waged for personal reasons for a decade, but wont lift a finger to live up to their supposed ideals. Genocide in the Sudan or Bosnia? Pfft. Iraq? We will tolerate war crimes committed in our name in the course of a war waged for at best personal reasons, and at worst for the purpose of lining the VPs pockets with oil money. Give us a chance to assist the revolution against the actual murderous despot and maybe help guide a developing nation in a direction that is good for the world. Lift them out of barbarism. We shrink from it like frightened children. We dont have to occupy the country. Just use our considerable air assets to remove a disparity in materiel, then maybe see about betting in UN or EU peacekeepers until the immediate chaos settles down--and to prevent reprisals against people like syrian christians caught between a rock and a hard place until those things can be worked out.

But no. We are afraid to roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty, but are always eager to instead shower in blood. So long as we dont have to clean up our mess afterward (citation: modified from an Academia Nut quote). For at least the last 13 years, our foreign policy has pointedly revolved not around any sort of geopolitical conflict (as misguided as the cold war was) that in some twilight zone reality made some terrifying sense. It has not revolved around helping humanity. It has revolved around killing The Other to feel better about ourselves and assuage some psychotic fear that we are somehow fragile and vulnerable. We have not been acting as we should. We have not been acting

</rant>

Sorry. I am feeling idealistic today. A thing that makes me feel bitter and angry.

How can Syria have superiority in numbers agaisnt Israel when they can't even take out some "internal rebel terrorist" and have to hire Hezbollah? I guess I'm missing something here.

Did you learn nothing from the last 50 years? The rebels are locals, with a broad base of local support. Those are very difficult in the modern era to take out. A state that engages in set piece wars is in many ways an easier opponent.

Israel would be a bad choice for this, for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is that every other arab state hates them. If another power needs to become involved, it needs to be someone who either has the power to not be at existential risk from the other arab states, and the clout to not care about their protestations (hello US), or a state or group of states that has cordial relations with the middle eastern states. (I would need to run such a list by a foreign policy wonk I know)

[TimothyC]

Lift them out of barbarism.

You're talking about people that eat the heart of their enemies, kidnap Christian bishops trying to negotiate the release of captives, and institute Sharia. Putting the current rebels in a position of power would do nothing to decrease 'barbarism'.

Screw the rebels.

then maybe see about betting in UN or EU peacekeepers until the immediate chaos settles down--and to prevent reprisals against people like syrian christians caught between a rock and a hard place until those things can be worked out.

Yes, you'd tie down other nation's forces for a generation. Good luck getting countries to volunteer for that!

[cadbrowser]

1) Syria has plenty of jets and tanks, but jets and tanks are of limited use in suppressing a massive popular rebellion. They are very useful in stopping an Israeli invasion, though. Syria's great weakness, like a lot of dictatorships, is a lack of politically reliable enforcers to keep the populace under control. There aren't enough goons on the goon squad willing to break the heads of civilian rebels, which is a whole different problem than finding enough artillerymen and pilots to stop a foreign invasion.

2) On a side note, getting Israel to enforce a no-fly zone might just end the civil war... by convincing all the religious fanatics fighting Assad to join forces with the government. Oops.

3) You will note that during the Six Days' War, Israel launched a surprise attack against an enemy that was tactically unprepared for combat, and came up with a number of useful gimmicks (like increased water rations for desert fighting). None of this necessarily reflects permanent military superiority.

4) It also does not help that the Israeli military has had very little to do for the past 40 years except occupying the Palestinian sectors, which doesn't require any real tactical sophistication in open warfare on their part.

1. I guess I need to do a bit more reading on military strategy. If that is the case (as to what you are saying in your last sentence); then how would it be possible for the US to conduct a no-fly zone in Syria?

2. Would they actually do it tho? How many times has Israel destroyed targets in these other countries to prevent advancement in nuclear technology (and their threat of destroying any Russian S-300s)? Why haven't these other countries stood up and wiped Israel off the face of the Earth by now? Shit, they make enough threats to.

3. Oh yeah; that's right, I remember reading about that. Thank you for reminding me. I also thought that their use (invention?) of the Uzi helped during that time too; am I mistaken on that? With regards to the other technologies in the area from other countries; I was under the impression that Israel has undeclared nuke capabilities; isn't that a cornerstone of deterrence and power...even, dare say, superior military might?

4. Understandable and I would agree with this assessment; however, doesn't the US and other allied countries conduct war games with Israel to keep them tip top?

[cadbrowser]

Wow Alyrium Denryle,

I have to say that is a very powerful and emotional response. Can't say I disagree with anything you said there. It pains me to know that much of the International powers that be tend to dispute or ignore such tragedies as you bring up. It is easier to deny such horrendous things that it is to do the right thing. I have been thinking this way for a long time and you put it so eloquently.

Did you learn nothing from the last 50 years?

I did make several disclaimers that I wasn't an expert in these matters; so I'm afraid I probably am ignorant of what it has that I should have learned.

The rebels are locals, with a broad base of local support. Those are very difficult in the modern era to take out.

Oh yes, I'm fully aware of this. I am just lost as to finding a relevant course of action that would make it easier. It seems to me that the support is due to the fact that the local populous feels secure and protected. Even though it is by the same people that hurt and terrorize them. I remember, I believe it was, that during the Iraqi War; that there was a lot of leafletts and propaganda that went around to encourage the surrender of those we were fighting, with some success. Would more of this type of action be prudent to encourage change in the minds of the locals? Maybe a better system of infiltration to instigate a change. Course, civil war is a pretty good indicator of wanton change...lol

So, would the EU be a better choice? I have a feeling that the US will have to do something soon tho; I mean really, do we want to run the risk of further destabilizing that area because we have the majority saying we don't want another war?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Dude, Israel's power is not their military; it's their stranglehold on America's balls. America is the one who gives in this relationship. Do you think they'd just invade a country for laughs, to pick sides in a war between secular totalitarian assholes and religious totalitarian assholes?

Their nukes have nothing to do with this, and they aren't military might by themselves in this context; perhaps in other wars yes, but not this. And why use them? Once they do (without provocation of course, since this will be a war of Isreali aggression), the Middle East will instantly go to war and be justified in doing this. Nukes are used to threaten people, not destroy them; that's a staple of diplomacy. Even when they were used on Japan, they weren't meant to force Japan's surrender but to pressure them into surrendering faster.

If America wants to make yet another intervention, support yet another bunch of theofascists like they did in Iraq and Libya, and once again piss on the concept of national sovereignty, I'm afraid they'll have to do it themselves.

[Sea Skimmer]

1) Syria has plenty of jets and tanks, but jets and tanks are of limited use in suppressing a massive popular rebellion. They are very useful in stopping an Israeli invasion, though. Syria's great weakness, like a lot of dictatorships, is a lack of politically reliable enforcers to keep the populace under control. There aren't enough goons on the goon squad willing to break the heads of civilian rebels, which is a whole different problem than finding enough artillerymen and pilots to stop a foreign invasion.

The Syrians are still using T-55s and T-62s in front line service alongside the nightmare that is the BMP-1, most divisions never got the T-72 in any form though BMP-2 proliferation was high. Literally in some cases the same vehicles they fought with in 1973 are still in use, and they didn't exactly do a good job in that war. The same is true of more then a few of the jets in the air force and about 75% of the air defenses, though some of the remainder are very good systems, if only fit for point defense like SA-17. Frankly a lot of the mechanized gear the Syrians have would be so useless against an Israeli ground invasion that it would probably be more productive to arm the crews with RPGs and Kornet ATGMs, as one place Syria does have a large modern arsenal is infantry portable anti tank weapons. Not the best situation when you then have a civil war break out of course.

But indeed, talk of an Israeli invasion or Israeli no fly zone is nonsensical, but so is any belief that Israel could do anything but cream every Arab army within range. Damascus can be encircled by attacks across open plains and empty desert, conditions in which superior Israeli armor and air power would make the Gulf War look fair. Only the Egyptians could even think about putting up a really serious sustained fight, and they still won't win.

[Sea Skimmer]

(Lebanon), against massively outclassed opponent, they performed "lackluster" (and if I recall correctly, ran out of missiles and bombs after a couple of days, needing to procure them from the US in a dash to keep their airforce going).

Not a problem right now, as the US transferred rather immense amounts of old ammunition to the IDF after 2006, and they actually only ran out of a few specific, if very important, weapons (mainly MLRS rockets and smart bomb kits, not warheads) in no small part just because they were trying to use massive firepower on very low value targets specifically to avoid a ground war. They flew three thousand bombing sorties in the first week alone. Ground action never involved more then a small fraction of the IDF. The IDF armored force had very serious training problems in the war, none of the other combat arms did. Said training problems are resolved.

If you directed the kind of firepower the IDF expended in 2006 against a conventional military offering discreet targets, well, that'd be the end of that conventional military. Do also remember that Hezbollah for its part had some of the most modern anti tank weapons in the world, in fact ones better then those used by many European NATO military forces at the moment, defending rough terrain they had fortified and mined for six solid years, and faced only about 10,000 Israeli troops spread over a wide front, and still couldn't actually stop them when they wanted to take certain specific ground. A general IDF offensive was never launched.

That was against Lebanon, which they outnumbered 10:1 in aircraft frames. Now Syria has parity and superiority in numbers, and most of these forces can, and will, be redirected against Israel at whim. That is not including eventual allied states and independently founded groups also doing their part (if Israel were the one to beat up, a lot of groups will join in happily). This will end bloody, very bloody.

What allied states? Iran which has no ability to bring serious forces into the conflict, or Hezbollah, a military of perhaps 10,000 full time troops, which is presently having trouble taking a single small city with the support of Syrian tanks, artillery, FROG rockets, air strikes ect...? Jordan will never fight Israel again and barely helped in 1973? Egypt which still supports Israel on blockading Gaza to no small degree, let alone showing any signs of supporting Assad. This leaves whom exactly? The Saudis whom have not gotten involved in an Arab-Israeli war since 1948? If Israel entered the war the only possible way Iran could support Syria would be overland through Iraq too, as even the present airlift would be taken out play, and Iraq might well refuse such overt support. Certainly they would refuse the passage of massed Iranian ground forces, if Iran even dared to send them. You think Russia perhaps would save the Syrians, like it never did before?

Bloody I agree it would be, but its going to be about 90% Arab blood. The Israelis are not outnumbered by the Syrians in any meaningful way either, let alone after the Syrians have had there entire military training system ground to pieces for two solid years and several tens of thousands of trained men killed or wounded fighting on both sides. Remember mobilized the IDF is about 10% of the entire Israeli population.

Also, strategically, Israel is completely surrounded by non-friendly nations, has only a handful of meaningful ports and is almost completely dependent on external supplies. Without open support and lot's of supplies by US forces, they won't last long if open war breaks out (especially since it doesn't help their goals, at all, and their population will probably not support it).

Which Arab states are not also completely and totally dependent on external aid? How big of stockpiles of serviceable ammunition do you really think they have over twenty years after the Soviet Union stopped selling them arms on barter terms? The Syrians were throwing exploding barrels out of helicopters to conserve conventional ammunition for a while in 2012. They've given that up now because MANPADS and light flak brought down so many low flying helicopters. I still dont understand how the HIPs were turning into blazing fireballs so easily either. The Israelis lost one helicopter in the entire 2006 war, and Hezbollah had SA-16 which is a Stinger level of modern MANPADS. It was a transport shot down while making a tactical landing under fire too. You'd kind of hope someone could knock down a helicopter in that situation.

Worst comes to worst the Israelis drop neutron bombs on your imaginary Arab hoards anyway. The Israelis don't loose in a conventional war, the situation was five times more favorable in the past, and the Arabs far more unified, and they still lost every single time. That's why nobody has tried a full scale one since 1973, which is forty damn years ago, and when the Arab objective had already been reduced from driving the Zionists into the ocean to just to reclaiming territory lost in 1967. None have tried to face them with mechanized forces since 1982 when Syrian forces were still completely defeated and while only attempting more or less defensive operations.

[AniThyng]

I may be grossly misinformed, but I find it hard to believe that any rebel faction in the MidEast would actually accept open Israeli help in their struggle no matter how useful.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You're talking about people that eat the heart of their enemies, kidnap Christian bishops trying to negotiate the release of captives, and institute Sharia. Putting the current rebels in a position of power would do nothing to decrease 'barbarism'.

Screw the rebels.

I said "lift them out", which implies that they are currently somewhat barbarous. That said, we should expect some... issues...to arise...in a rebel insurgency in a developing (such as it is, in Syria) nation. Particularly when said rebellion is made up of numerous factions. Democracy protesters, Kurds, the Free Syrian Army, and Jihadist groups of varying degrees of repugnance. All of these groups are united by a hatred of Assad, but other than that have their own goals and agendas. The cannibal you posted is a particular rabid Jihadist.

As for Sharia law, no shit. Every islamic majority state on the planet uses some form of Sharia law, which is just Islamic jurisprudence. What form it takes depends on sect. These are cultures that have no had a western style enlightenment. It happens. If you want to make sure that the form Sharia law takes in one of these new post arab spring nations is one that is palatable to human rights groups and our collective conscience, you need to have a seat at the post-war table. You need to have boots on the ground making sure that Jihadist groups dont engage in voter intimidation. You want to make sure you have a regional ally rather than a regional enemy? You want a population that feels gratitude toward you, rather than one that feels it was collectively left out in the cold.

Yes, you'd tie down other nation's forces for a generation. Good luck getting countries to volunteer for that!

And our own. We tend to make up a good chunk of UN peacekeeping forces. The point is, with something like this there are options other than the US shouldering the full burden of occupation in a conquered state. There are plenty of places where there have been UN and AU peacekeeping forces for a long time. The congo comes to mind. We are not looking at a multi-generational occupation. Not necessarily anyway. We are not talking about a foreign invasion that comes in, smashes all the infrastructure, purges the government and installs puppets all in the face of a hostile population defending their homes. We are talking about a rebellion with a broad base of public support, and a government structure that could be kept largely in-tact. What you do need to worry about is infighting once the cause that unites the different factions is done, and facilitating reconciliation among the various factions in a multi-ethnic state. That is a different kettle of fish than Iraq, and something nultinational peacekeeping forces are at least decent at.

If we are not willing to do that, we at least need to drop the hypocritical pretense that we stand for actual values other than our own narrow interests. If we want to worship at the altar of Kissinger and do Whatever Is Necessary in pursuit of our national interests--fuck principle, law, or what is and is not repugnant--that is fine, but we need to stop pretending that we are not. Or, we need to stand up and recommit ourselves to the ideal that human beings no matter where they are have something resembling rights, and that we will act to enforce those rights whenever we are able to do so.

We owe the world that much, and do do anything else is nothing short of moral cowardice.

[K. A. Pital]

Salafist and Wahhabist Islamism is barbaric. Baa'thism is islamism-lite, more secularized but also despotic and destroying all secular forces to the left of itself (yes, that includes leftists and classic liberals alike). That's like choosing between two huge, massive, steaming piles of shit.

[Thanas]

Does anybody want the rebels to win?

If the rebels do win, we most likely will have an Islamic state which will kill/drive out the minorities and which will pose another threat to the region. Hooray, now you have both Iraq and Syria destabilized.

If Assad will win - and depending on the concessions he made to Hizbollah - there will be a brutal dictatorship which doesn't have much of an interest in oppressing minorities but which will be engaging in repressions and revenge against those who rose up.

Both parties suck and I don't think the west should get involved in any way here. The rebels cannot win on their own and if they win with western intervention then there is a huge problem.

Best option would be a massive intervention and nation building but we all know how that tends to turn out.

[cadbrowser]

You see Thanas, I think that is the major catch 22 here. Neither option is best for the stability of the area or for the people in question; but can we really just sit back and do nothing but have a dick swinging party with the Russians and China?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really at all for sending American troops to get involved in yet another war.

I keep thinking that if the Americans backed an Israeli intervention as I mentioned above (seems there are wide opinions as to the feasibility/plausibility of this) then the Russians and Chinese would back their buddy Assad (Syria); and we'd have a potential war by proxy; like so many times before. I believe history has shown that this is never a good idea (Korean War/Vietnam War).

What is it that we are doing wrong with the intervention/nation building option that should be done?

Sorry I'm asking so many questions, this stuff fascinates me and I am really interested in the aspects of it for which I am uneducated in. I appreciate all those that have participated so far.

[cadbrowser]

We need to stand up and recommit ourselves to the ideal that human beings no matter where they are have something resembling rights, and that we will act to enforce those rights whenever we are able to do so.

YES! It is apparent that we "say" that is what we are fighting for, but as you mentioned before we are only there to serve our national interest. It is sad the hypocrites we've become.

Of course, I don't see any other countries doing much different tho. Am I wrong? If so, I'll concede; but I would need some educating in that regard.

[cadbrowser]

Do you think they'd just invade a country for laughs, to pick sides in a war between secular totalitarian assholes and religious totalitarian assholes?

Dr. Trainwreck,

I don't understand why you pulled this question out of your ass. Never did I say it was for laughs. Nor was I trying to imply an invasion (if that is how it came out, I retract that part). My intent was to discuss the plausibility of passing the responsibility of a No-Fly Zone over Syria to Israel instead of the US doing it. How was this missed?

And it seems that they do take out military targets when they deem it a threat to their national security no matter where it is in the Middle East; and they don't ask anyone's permission. They may deny it, but I'm pretty sure we are fully aware who does and does not have the capabilities to carry out these types of missions.

Nukes are used to threaten people, not destroy them; that's a staple of diplomacy.

Where did I imply or suggest that they be used to destroy people? I know full well what Nukes are for. I mentioned deterrence and power. Maybe I wasn't clear on my statement. To clarify; I was under the impression that deterrence was the threat of use.

[Thanas]

You see Thanas, I think that is the major catch 22 here. Neither option is best for the stability of the area or for the people in question; but can we really just sit back and do nothing but have a dick swinging party with the Russians and China?

My suggestion would be to not do anything at all. Offer the turks as much help as possible with refugees, make a deal with Assad to allow refugees to cross the border without much harassment by pro-Assad forces, then let Assad deal with the rebels as he sees fit.

Problem is of course are that Assad might not want to do that but in reality this is a win-win for him - he gets to rid himself of people who do not like him in power and the US would back down from their unreasonable demand of throwing him out.

Then the main problem is Turkey, which will not be thrilled about having to house/feed/integrate that many dirty foreigners, but if the USA promises them billions of aid and a chance to repair the USA/Turkey relations - maybe some trade or military concessions as well - they will most certainly jump at the chance.

I keep thinking that if the Americans backed an Israeli intervention as I mentioned above (seems there are wide opinions as to the feasibility/plausibility of this) then the Russians and Chinese would back their buddy Assad (Syria); and we'd have a potential war by proxy; like so many times before. I believe history has shown that this is never a good idea (Korean War/Vietnam War).

Yeah, and there is also the problem that Israel itself would not necessarily want to get involved in that mess, considering that Hezbollah backs Assad and that half the rebels hate Israel as well. Better the devil you know.....

What is it that we are doing wrong with the intervention/nation building option that should be done?

Less idealistic and unrealistic goals might be a good start. "We will topple their dictator and then we will have a flourishing democracy in a country that has a history of tribalism over 2000 years old that was only broken by some of the most brutal empires in history before" is a childish way of thinking, but that didn't prevent the USA from squandering its resources and blood in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe look at the world and realize that nation building only worked so far in nations that had a) been utterly defeated and b) who had previously been democracies (Germany) or which had been thoroughly westernized (Korea, Japan, former Yugoslavia). Then recognize that tribal societies might not be the best candidates for nation-building by force and then scale back the ambitions.

I'd be happy with a dictator who:
- allows women more freedom than in Saudi Arabia
- doesn't care much for radical Islamic law or Jihad ideas
- allows for western education of his youth
- guarantees stability in the region and real economic growth for his people

Too bad that of the dictators who fit the bill one has been forced out (Mubarak), the other was hanged by the USA/its allies and the third is currently fighting an insurgency in Syria.

There are much worse despots than Assad to be honest and I do not trust the rebels at all. Last thing we need are massive armies of radical fighters financed by Saudi-Arabia/Bahrain to take over, like what happened in Libya/Tunisia.

[Sea Skimmer]

Does anybody want the rebels to win?

If the rebels do win, we most likely will have an Islamic state which will kill/drive out the minorities and which will pose another threat to the region. Hooray, now you have both Iraq and Syria destabilized.

What makes you think Syria under Assad can ever be stable again? The level of displacement and destruction and economic collapse is already close to Iraq levels, while the regime has given up any pretext of equality and now openly bases its power on milita loyal to Assad, not the country. That's a big shift from how Syria was run before and it won't go away.

As for the Islamists, they actually only represent a minority of rebel forces and are barely present in several theaters of the fighting. Its not very bloody likely that they could ever turn Syria into what they want, but the more starved for arms the rebels are, the more the tactics they use will appeal and the more relative power they gain. The insurgency in Iraq never had the kind of firepower the rebels in Syria had, and ten years later people are still building car bombs. Syria has been spared a lot of that because for now, the Islamists are far more interested in specific military objectives because they can actually be effective against them, and because other rebel groups demand they do so. If conventional rebel power collapses, the Islamists aren't going to keep fighting that way.

Sure, the elder Assad shot his way back into stability, but that was precisely because he was able to demonstrate certain, overwhelming power against his opponents when given the chance. That's dead and buried, and now Hezbollah, a group which on paper has hardly 10% of the manpower of the Syrian Army, and only a fraction of that in Syria, has managed to become vital to his ability to exercise power. People don't forget this stuff.

If Assad will win - and depending on the concessions he made to Hizbollah - there will be a brutal dictatorship which doesn't have much of an interest in oppressing minorities but which will be engaging in repressions and revenge against those who rose up.

Which it was already doing before, but with the pretext and some actual reality of national unity in the power structure behind it, which is now gone and doubtfully can ever come back. Or at least not in a time frame anyone can meaningfully project, it took Lebanon thirty years and only then by accepting a state within a state.

Both parties suck and I don't think the west should get involved in any way here. The rebels cannot win on their own and if they win with western intervention then there is a huge problem.

And so letting the situation go on for years is better? Seriously, even if Assad can win back large scale control of the entire country its going to take three or four more years to accomplish at the rate things are going. Pretty much everyone in the early 90s was saying getting involved in the Yugo civil war was a horrible idea, that starving the weaker side for arms would be the best option ect... the parallels in talk are pretty interesting.

Best option would be a massive intervention and nation building but we all know how that tends to turn out.

The best if implausible option would be finding a way to kill Assad. If he was gone a lot of groups might be able to reach some kind of accommodation, even one which leaves the Baath party in power. Next best is finding a way to force a stabilization of the fighting at which point there would at least be time for people to think. Anything else is battle to the death territory.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Do you think they'd just invade a country for laughs, to pick sides in a war between secular totalitarian assholes and religious totalitarian assholes?

Dr. Trainwreck,

I don't understand why you pulled this question out of your ass. Never did I say it was for laughs. Nor was I trying to imply an invasion (if that is how it came out, I retract that part). My intent was to discuss the plausibility of passing the responsibility of a No-Fly Zone over Syria to Israel instead of the US doing it. How was this missed?

And it seems that they do take out military targets when they deem it a threat to their national security no matter where it is in the Middle East; and they don't ask anyone's permission. They may deny it, but I'm pretty sure we are fully aware who does and does not have the capabilities to carry out these types of missions.

You are a serious fucking prick and a dishonest fucktard, you know that? I said that Israel has America by the balls, and I said that America is the one who gives in this relationship, by these exact words. What happened, your mouse slipped? You forgot to quote them?

Israel, to cut it short, has pretty much never done anything that anyone asked them to, not even when the US asked them to. Why would they do that now? Yeah, they might do it if they feel it suits them, but relying on a pariah state to actually do what is asked of them isn't sound policy.

Where did I imply or suggest that they be used to destroy people? I know full well what Nukes are for. I mentioned deterrence and power. Maybe I wasn't clear on my statement. To clarify; I was under the impression that deterrence was the threat of use.

You said that having nukes suggests military superiority, and I said not in every context. For example, they wouldn't help you enforce a no-fly zone.

[Thanas]

[What makes you think Syria under Assad can ever be stable again? The level of displacement and destruction and economic collapse is already close to Iraq levels, while the regime has given up any pretext of equality and now openly bases its power on milita loyal to Assad, not the country. That's a big shift from how Syria was run before and it won't go away.

I don't think that shift is that pronounced or matters that much, seeing how you can't really seperate the country from Assad seeing how long his family has been in power.

As for the Islamists, they actually only represent a minority of rebel forces and are barely present in several theaters of the fighting. Its not very bloody likely that they could ever turn Syria into what they want, but the more starved for arms the rebels are, the more the tactics they use will appeal and the more relative power they gain. The insurgency in Iraq never had the kind of firepower the rebels in Syria had, and ten years later people are still building car bombs. Syria has been spared a lot of that because for now, the Islamists are far more interested in specific military objectives because they can actually be effective against them, and because other rebel groups demand they do so. If conventional rebel power collapses, the Islamists aren't going to keep fighting that way.

The same will happen if Assad starts losing and he actually is in a position to cause much more trouble that way.

Sure, the elder Assad shot his way back into stability, but that was precisely because he was able to demonstrate certain, overwhelming power against his opponents when given the chance. That's dead and buried, and now Hezbollah, a group which on paper has hardly 10% of the manpower of the Syrian Army, and only a fraction of that in Syria, has managed to become vital to his ability to exercise power. People don't forget this stuff.

And they might also remember how during previous wars more Syrians died because the army was unwilling to commit the elite regime forces to the front. Again, I don't see how this will matter that much.

And so letting the situation go on for years is better? Seriously, even if Assad can win back large scale control of the entire country its going to take three or four more years to accomplish at the rate things are going. Pretty much everyone in the early 90s was saying getting involved in the Yugo civil war was a horrible idea, that starving the weaker side for arms would be the best option ect... the parallels in talk are pretty interesting.

I really doubt the situations are the same since we do not have the same divide between christians and moslems here.

The best if implausible option would be finding a way to kill Assad. If he was gone a lot of groups might be able to reach some kind of accommodation, even one which leaves the Baath party in power. Next best is finding a way to force a stabilization of the fighting at which point there would at least be time for people to think. Anything else is battle to the death territory.

Or killing Assad might result in a fractioning of his party and result in even more chaos and fighting.

[cadbrowser]

You are a serious fucking prick and a dishonest fucktard, you know that? I said that Israel has America by the balls, and I said that America is the one who gives in this relationship, by these exact words. What happened, your mouse slipped? You forgot to quote them?

HUH? I'm confused then. How is what you just typed lead into the part I objected to? To go from me asking about a US backed establishment of an Israeli No Fly Zone in Syria to ask if they'd invade a country just for laughs is quite a dishonest stretch on your part. Israel "invades" other countries all the fucking time...I've already mentioned that. So I am really not understanding where the hell you are coming from.

Israel, to cut it short, has pretty much never done anything that anyone asked them to, not even when the US asked them to. Why would they do that now? Yeah, they might do it if they feel it suits them, but relying on a pariah state to actually do what is asked of them isn't sound policy.

I have no objections to what you just said here. In fact I even shared the same sentiment prior to your post in referencing Korea and Vietnam. War by proxy is indeed been historically shown to be a bad idea. I hadn't entertained the possibility of non-compliance of Israel not wanting to do this. And really that wasn't the focus of my inquiry. I was assuming for the hypothetical proposed that we asked and they had said yes.

You said that having nukes suggests military superiority, and I said not in every context. For example, they wouldn't help you enforce a no-fly zone.

Aren't you nitpicking a bit here? I didn't suggest it. I asked if it was possible; IOW, I already implied that I didn't know and I was seeking knowledge. I fail to understand why you are associating these things in this context. My question regarding the superiority of the Israeli army over the rest of the Middle East with the Nukes was in direct dispute of what Simon_Jester, LaCroix, and you objected to as far as them having the means to pull off said No Fly Zone in the first place. Sea Skimmer, I thought, did a nice job of demonstrating that Israel indeed had a superior military for that area. My understanding is quite frankly (from what Sea Skimmer wrote) that Israel wouldn't NEED to use the threat of Nukes; that they were quite capable in and of themselves.

[cosmicalstorm]

I don't see any realistic outcome for the current Syrian conflict that does not involve tons and tons of human blood being spilled for several years to come. The outcome that I expect is multiple smaller warlord-esque states run by whomever is brutal enough to control them. I expect plenty of massacring, expulsion of civilians based on race and religion, I certainly expect brutal sharia law to be enforced in some places. Generally speaking there is no nice solution short of Q landing there and magicking everything bad away. Poor Syrians.

[cadbrowser]

Is this with or without any foreign involvement?