Syria Shoots Down Turkish Fighter Jet

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I strongly suspect that concerns over Syria's Chemical Weapons have little to do with there use by the Assad Government but very much to do with the consequences of them falling into the hands of those Talibanesque head bangers, presented to us as the Free Syrian Army.

A very rare find today on the BBC website. I have reproduced it in full, just in case it disappears or gets substantially rewritten in the near future

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In the late evening, a busload of Iraqis arrived in Baghdad after a 12-hour journey across the desert.

With a mixture of anger and resignation, they said that they had been forced to leave their homes near Damascus by armed opposition groups.

"The Free Syrian Army ruined our lives," said one Iraqi man who had just arrived with his Syrian wife and daughter.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

They are not an army, they're just gangs”

Syrian woman

His wife stepped in to explain: "We live in Sayyida Zainab," she said, referring to a neighbourhood in southern Damascus.

The neighbourhood is named after the grand-daughter of the Prophet Muhammad, who is believed to be buried in the Sayyida Zainab mosque.

It is popular with Shia pilgrims from all over the world, and home to many Iraqi refugees, mostly Shia.

"They evicted us," she said, staring defiantly at the camera. She was on the verge of tears, but refused to break down.

"They are not an army, they're just gangs. There's only one army, the Syrian Arab Army, and they have a right to protect the people and the country. They are in control in Damascus."

'Playing the sectarian card'

I asked her why she left if she thought the army is still in control.

"Because we fear for our children. They're playing the sectarian card, especially in Sayyida Zainab."

Another woman described a gruelling escape from Damascus.

"Last night, we did not sleep. We waited on the street till dawn so we could leave. People just grabbed their children - Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, all of them got in cars and drove off, without knowing where," she said.

"Those who managed to get on a bus came to Iraq. Those who didn't - may God protect them - I don't know what happened to them."

One of the refugees told me he had seen leaflets in Sayyida Zainab warning Iraqis there to leave within three days.

Another said an entire Afghan family had been shot to death in their homes.

Many of these Iraqis had been in Syria for well over a decade, and others left in 2006 and 2007, as Iraq descended into its own civil war.

Their story, and the way they told it, captures a snapshot of a reality slowly unravelling in Syria and Iraq, almost in parallel; the passing of the era of Baathist dictatorship, and what many fear is the rise, in its place, of virulent sectarianism.

'My home'
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

The commanders of the Free Syrian Army are all Iraqi”

Iraqi man returning from Syria

One of the Iraqis coming out of the bus told me a man he knew, a follower of Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, was shot to death by the predominantly Sunni Free Syrian Army.

What, I asked, about rumours which have been circulating for months that al-Sadr's men had been fighting alongside the regime in Syria?

The crowd around me offered a prompt and collective denial, and one young man even volunteered a counter-rumour.

"Yes. There are Iraqis fighting in Syria," he said, observing with satisfaction the look of surprise on my face.

"The commanders of the Free Syrian Army are all Iraqi," he told me with a penetrating gaze and a slight nod of his head, to make sure I got the nuance - Iraqi Sunnis was the unspoken explanation.

It was a striking feature of the descent into sectarian division; an eagerness to believe the worst about the others, with or without proof, and to reject anything bad about one's own.

As everyone prepared to leave the station, the Syrian woman asked me not to use the interview we had on camera, because she would still like to return to Syria and feared retaliation for what she said.

But could she return anytime soon, I asked?

"I couldn't stay away," she shot back, with fire in her eyes. "It's my home."

Resting on her arms was a sleepy three-year-old who just wanted to get to bed - the daughter of a Sunni Syrian mother and a Shia Iraqi father, going back and forth between two countries which seem to be racing each other to the abyss.

This is of course blatant ethnic cleansing.
 

Kurt

Junior Member
If a neighbour considered dangerous has nukes you usually try to have some chemical and biological weapons to deliver a cheap deterrence. The usual report is about starting disarmament of chemical weapons which until then officially didn't exist. Even the US had some years ago reports about disarming their chemical weapons and the problems of doing this in the required quantity. Chemical weapons are not useful against peer competitors in order to win, but they guarantee the ability to turn wars messy and devastate anything civilian. Iraq did have chemical weapons, they used them, then they were under an embargo and during the invasion nothing of this former arsenal showed up. The war, arms controls and embargo seemingly worked very effective to pull these teeth (the US likely kept counting them based on available information). But there was no 100% certainty, it was needed for political reasons (they could at least have found some dangerous chlorine gas bottles next to a swimming pool) and turncoats usually overblew their "knowledge" in order to feel considered important - typical intelligence "failure".

Russian use of chemical weapons is connected to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and was something to openly publish in newspapers - typical for WWI aftermath.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
provides a good overview and a passing remark on the issue.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
about this issue.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is a published research that includes this issue, wikipedia provides a decent summary and assessment.

One of my neighbours was from former Yugoslavia. She told me an interesting scheme for ethnic violence: The ethnic radical groups were part outsiders coming to their settlement. They recruited locals and fought a very vicious mobbing campaign against any possible mediators between the groups - usually mixed couples and their children - constantly harassing their children by many other children, saying abuses in public space and anonymously destroying their property non-stop. After the connections had been cut - possible mediators going away - indoctrination for the greater clash began.
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Delft

I find that defection to be particularly troubling.

With what the rebels have done so far, I would really not put it past them to use chemical weapons on civilian targets to cause maximum casualties to blame it on the regime.

With the way the western media have been eating out of their hands and reporting everything passed on to them by the rebels like well trained parrots, the west could be dropping bombs and being well and truly committed before the truth came out if such an atrocity was committed.

This latest defection might have just handed them the keys to Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, or at least part of it. Let's just hope the regime secures all their weapons in time.

I strongly suspect that concerns over Syria's Chemical Weapons have little to do with there use by the Assad Government but very much to do with the consequences of them falling into the hands of those Talibanesque head bangers, presented to us as the Free Syrian Army.

A very rare find today on the BBC website. I have reproduced it in full, just in case it disappears or gets substantially rewritten in the near future.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




This is of course blatant ethnic cleansing.

A surprisingly candid piece, it would be interesting to check back in a few weeks to see if it is still up or unedited.

What I find most telling is this line "It was a striking feature of the descent into sectarian division; an eagerness to believe the worst about the others, with or without proof, and to reject anything bad about one's own."

Rami Ruhayem obviously used it to refer to the refugees' fears and suspicions, but it could be used just as accurately to describe the typical western reaction to rumors of horrors and atrocities coming out of everywhere ranging from Libya to Syria - every time something bad is done, it's always the government that is responsible for all the bad things. The rebels are all saints and could do no wrong.

I think Emma Sky was right on the money when she
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

It seems few Americans appreciate just how narrowly they managed to avoid an absolute catastrophe in Iraq that would have made the horrors witnessed there to date seem bland in comparison. Bush's last gamble with the 'surge' paid off and America managed to pull out of Iraq with some semblance of dignity. Instead of thanking their lucky stars that they managed to dodge the bullet, the elements within the US political and media circles that helped engineered the Iraq war took that as a 'win', as a validation of their world view, and without missing a beat, were busy at turning the same tricks to pull the US reluctantly into Libya. The swiftness of Kadaffi's fall only encouraged them further and now they are setting their sights on Syria, and then Iran after that and then who knows.

The western media only cared to report about the atrocities of Libyan government. The excesses of the rebels were overlooked and omitted with a uniformity and diligence that would have made China's censors proud, and there has been almost no in-depth reporting about the chaos and violence after the fall of the regime.

The western public might be well quarantined from the truth, but it's painfully obvious that word has spread like wildfire in the ME. The lessons Libya has taught the region is that the west couldn't give a crap if the rebels committed atrocities. The truth doesn't matter, you can do what you like and the western media will obligingly make the regime to look like the bad guys. It is any wonder then, that the rebels would be acting with such ruthless abandon? There are strong indications that they even committed ethnic cleansing massacres, and filmed it to release to the western media claiming to be footage taken by government forces, and the western world obligingly condemned the Syrian government for the killings.

Now we are seeing the other daemons unleashed by America's wars in the ME surfacing. Mercenaries and religious fanatics are now a core part, if not the driving force behind the Free Syrian Army, if they didn't start the whole mess in the first place. They are waging a religious, sectarian civil-jihad between Sunnis and Shia that first started in Iraq.

Far from being alarmed, the west seems to be either in a total state of blissful ignorance, or are gleefully cheering on the 'good muslims' and helping them to kill the 'bad muslims' thinking if they are too busy killing each other, they are not planning attacks on the west.

They might be right on some level and it does make a degree of heartless sense, but that only applies in the very short term. The west, and America in particular, would do well not to forget the origins of the Taliban and Al-Q, but it seems like they are ignoring all the danger signs with commendable determination.

They helped to train, finance and arm those groups to fight the Soviets, just like how they are training, financing and arming the rebel groups fighting against unfriendly regimes today. Just like when they were sabotaging the Soviets, the west is all for it when it comes to helping the rebels blow shit up, but are not anywhere close to as keen about clearing up the aftermath, just like Iraq and Libya today.

Some might still be cheering America and Britain and France today, but in 10 years time, 20 years time, when the memory of Kaddaffi's excesses have faded with the passing generations, all that will be left would be the bullet ridden and bombed out legacy of how the west abandoned the Libyans after they served their purpose in removing an annoying piece on the chess board of the New Great Game.

There is still time to rectify those errors and avoid repeating history, but that would require the western media to be fair and unbiased in their treatment of stories instead of just pushing their own agendas and imposing their world view on everyone, and for western governments and leaders to have a coherent long-term game plan, and most of all, it needs the west to acknowledge and understand, even if unofficially, the dangerous, unpredictable and uncontrollable forces they are toying with and to stop while they are ahead and try to stop the Sunni-Shia war that has sparked from Iraq and now looks set to spread.

Sadly, that does not look likely to come to pass, and if anything, the west looks like it is trying to take advantage and channel the muslim civil war and help it to reach it's bloody climax by helping to take down the champion Iran. Syria is just collateral damage because it is seen as a pawn on Iran's, and the west would back just about anyone who wishes to overthrow the Assad regime.

If Syria falls, it could easily start a domino effect that will lead to the fall of Iran. America sees that as a great thing and is doing all it can to help it to come to pass. But it is not considering the long term consequences and risks that will be paid for such a 'victory'.
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
has anyone seen what is actually happening in Syria, its beyond horrific, neither side know how to fight so they are being just down right brutal, someone needs to stop this
 

delft

Brigadier
If a neighbour considered dangerous has nukes you usually try to have some chemical and biological weapons to deliver a cheap deterrence. The usual report is about starting disarmament of chemical weapons which until then officially didn't exist. Even the US had some years ago reports about disarming their chemical weapons and the problems of doing this in the required quantity. Chemical weapons are not useful against peer competitors in order to win, but they guarantee the ability to turn wars messy and devastate anything civilian. Iraq did have chemical weapons, they used them, then they were under an embargo and during the invasion nothing of this former arsenal showed up. The war, arms controls and embargo seemingly worked very effective to pull these teeth (the US likely kept counting them based on available information). But there was no 100% certainty, it was needed for political reasons (they could at least have found some dangerous chlorine gas bottles next to a swimming pool) and turncoats usually overblew their "knowledge" in order to feel considered important - typical intelligence "failure".

Russian use of chemical weapons is connected to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and was something to openly publish in newspapers - typical for WWI aftermath.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
provides a good overview and a passing remark on the issue.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
about this issue.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is a published research that includes this issue, wikipedia provides a decent summary and assessment.

One of my neighbours was from former Yugoslavia. She told me an interesting scheme for ethnic violence: The ethnic radical groups were part outsiders coming to their settlement. They recruited locals and fought a very vicious mobbing campaign against any possible mediators between the groups - usually mixed couples and their children - constantly harassing their children by many other children, saying abuses in public space and anonymously destroying their property non-stop. After the connections had been cut - possible mediators going away - indoctrination for the greater clash began.
Thank you.

I thought at the time, and have seen no reason to change my mind, that the Peace Keeping Forces where providing three years to destroy Yugoslavia and then continue the civil war. Remember Sebrenica, from where some 1200 to 1500 Serbs living in the neighborhood were murdered while the town was protected by Dutch forces. They didn't act against the terrorists and in the end couldn't protect the town. But by then the leaders of the terrorists were gone.

The opening article of yesterday's Asia Times on line was written by Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


SYRIA: REGIME CHANGE AND SMART POWER
The rise and fall of Turkey's Erdogan

By M K Bhadrakumar

Israel's emergence from the woodwork can signal only one thing: the Syrian crisis is moving towards the decisive phase. The lights have been switched on in the operation theatre and the carving of Syria is beginning. What is going to follow won't be a pretty sight at all since the patient is not under anesthesia, and the chief surgeon prefers to lead from behind while sidekicks do the dirty job.

So far, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have done the maximum they could to destabilize Syria and remove the regime headed by President Bashar al-Assad. But Bashar is still holding out. Israeli expertise is now needed to complete the unfinished business.

Someone is needed to plunge a sharp knife deep into Bashar's back. Jordan's king can't do the job; he measures up only to Bashar's knees. The Saudi and Qatari sheikhs with their ponderous, flabby body are not used to physical activity; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization prefers to be left alone, having burnt its fingers in Libya with a bloody operation that borders on war crime. That leaves Turkey.

In principle, Turkey has the muscle power, but intervention in Syria is fraught with risks and one of the enduring legacies of Kemal Ataturk is that Turkey avoids taking risks. Besides, Turkey's military is not quite in top form.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is also unable to carry the majority opinion within Turkey in favor of a war in Syria, and he is navigating a tricky path himself, trying to amend his country's constitution and make himself a real sultan - as if French President Francois Hollande were to combine the jobs of Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and Socialist Party chief Martine Aubry.

Obviously, Erdogan can't risk his career. Besides, there are imponderables - a potential backlash from the Alawite minority within Turkey (which resents the surge of Salafism under Erdogan's watch) and the perennial danger of walking into a trap set up by militant Kurds.

Al-Jazeera interviewed a leader of the Alawite sect in Turkey last week who expressed concern over the increasingly sectarian tone of Syria's internal strife inspired by Salafist Sunnis. They fear a Salafist surge within Turkey. The Alawites in Turkey see Assad "trying to hold together a tolerant, pluralist Syria".

Contingency plans
But all that is becoming irrelevant. The New York Times reported on Friday, quoting American officials in Washington, that US President Barack Obama is "increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down the [Syrian] government".

It further reported that the CIA operatives who are based in southern Turkey "for several weeks" will continue with their mission to create violence against the Syrian regime. Meanwhile, the US and Turkey will also be working on putting together a post-Assad "provisional government" in Syria.

Accordingly, the leaders of Syria's proscribed Muslim Brotherhood held a four-day conclave in Istanbul and announced plans on Friday to create an "Islamic party". "We are ready for the post-Assad era, we have plans for the economy, the courts, politics", the Brotherhood's spokesman announced.

The New York Times said Washington is in close contact with Ankara and Tel Aviv to discuss "a broad range of contingency plans" over "how to manage a Syrian government collapse".

The emergent operational plan is that while Ankara steps up the covert operations inside Syria (bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and Qatar), Israel will cross the border into Syria from the south and attack Bashar's military and degrade its capacity to resist the Turkish threat.

Turkey has stepped up the psywar, projecting through the media that the Syrian regime is already tottering. Turkish commentators are spreading the word. Murat Yetkin of the establishment daily Hurriyet quoted a Turkish official as saying,
Our people [Turkish intelligence] in the field are observing that the urban majority, which has preferred to remain neutral so far, has begun to support the opposition groups. We think the Syrian people have begun to perceive that the administration is breaking up.
But such riveting stories also reflect the Turkish establishment's worry that the Syrian regime is still not showing signs of capitulation despite all the hits it took from the "rebels".

Mission to Moscow
Erdogan's best hope is that the Turkish intelligence could orchestrate some sort of "palace coup" in Damascus in the coming days or weeks. What suits Ankara will be to have Bashar replaced by a transitional structure that retains elements of the existing Baathist state structure, which could facilitate an orderly transfer of power to a new administration - that is to say, ideally, a transition not different from what followed in Egypt once Hosni Mubarak exited.

But Erdogan is unsure whether Turkey can swing an Egypt-like coup in Damascus. His dash to Moscow last Wednesday aimed at sounding out Moscow if a new and stable transitional structure could be put together in Damascus through some kind of international cooperation. (Obama lent his weight to Erdogan's mission by telephoning Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday to discuss Syria.)

But curiously, just before Erdogan went into his scheduled meeting with Putin in the Kremlin, a massive terrorist attack took place in Damascus, killing the the Syrian defense minister and its intelligence chief. In the event, Moscow politely heard him out and assured Erdogan it would make a clinical separation between Russia's long-term strategic ties with Turkey and the Syrian issue. At any rate, the Russian stance remained unchanged, as evident from its veto at the United Security Council a week later.

Clearly, Moscow sees that the end game is underway in Syria. In an interview with the Russia Today on Friday, Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, spoke in exceptionally strong terms about what is happening. He said the Western strategy is to "whip us tensions in and around Syria at every opportunity".

Churkin said derisively, "There is much more geopolitics in their policy in Syria than humanism." Churkin also brought in Iran: "I would not rule out that then they would move on to Iran ... And this growing tension between Iran, the West and the Saudis is not helpful."

Prior to the visit to Moscow, Erdogan also travelled to Beijing, which also senses that the US is closing the deal on Syria. The Global Times newspaper commented in an editorial on Friday that "It's likely that the Assad administration will be overthrown ... chances of a political solution are becoming increasingly small ... changes in Syria might come rapidly."

US National Security Advisor Tom Donilon is travelling to Beijing to explore if the Chinese stance on Syria can be moderated.

Both Russia and China view the Erdogan era favorably for the upward curve in their ties with Turkey. Russia won a $20-$25 billion contract to build nuclear power plants in Turkey. China pulled in Turkey as a dialogue partner for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Turkey hosted a second military exercise with China recently and is aspiring to be a bridge between NATO and Beijing.

A man for all seasons
However, both Russia and China would factor in that as a "new cold war" builds up, Washington expects Turkey to get back into the fold and play its due role as ally in a vast swathe of land stretching from the Black Sea to the Caucasus and the Caspian and all the way to Central Asia. In the ultimate analysis, the US holds many trump cards, finessed through the Cold war era, to manipulate Turkish policies. This is quite evident from the centrality attached by Washington to the Iraqi Kurdish leader, Massoud Barzani, in the overall US strategy.

Obama received Barzani in the White House recently. Barzani has become a "lynchpin" in the US-Turkish policies on Syria. This was within months of ExxonMobil signing up in October to develop the fabulous oil fields located in the Kurdistan region controlled by Barzani, ignoring protests from Baghdad that such a deal with a provincial authority bypassing the central government would violate Iraq's sovereignty.

Last week, the US oil giant Chevron announced that it too has acquired an 80% controlling share in a company operating in the region covering a combined area of 1,124 square kilometers that is under Barzani's control.

The entry of ExxonMobile and Chevron is a game-changer in the regional politics over Syria. The point is, the best transportation route to the world market for the massive oil and gas deposits in Kurdistan will be via the Syrian port city of Latakia on the eastern Mediterranean. Indeed, an altogether new dimension to the US-Turkish game plan on Syria comes into view.

Siyah Kalem, a Turkish engineering and construction company, has bid for the transportation of natural gas from Kurdistan. Evidently, somewhere in the subsoil, the interests of the Anatolian corporate business (which has links with Turkey's ruling Islamist party) and the country's foreign policy orientations toward Syria and Iraq are converging. The US and Turkish interests overlap in the geopolitics of northern Iraq's energy reserves.

But Barzani is not only a business partner for Washington and Ankara but also a key agent who could leverage Turkey's Kurdish problem. With Washington's backing, he has launched a project to bring together the various Kurdish factions - Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian - on to a new political track.

He held a meeting of the Kurdish factions in Arbil last month. Plainly, Barzani tried to bribe the leaders of various Kurdish factions with funds provided from Ankara. He claims he has succeeded in reconciling the different Kurdish groups in Syria. (The Kurdish insurgency in Turkey is led by ethnic Syrian Kurds.) He also claims to have persuaded the Syrian Kurds to snap their links with Bashar and line up with the Syrian opposition.

These tidings from Arbil have a vital bearing on Erdogan's future course on Syria. As a prominent analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Soner Cagaptay, pointed out recently, the bottom line is that "Syria's restless and well-organized Kurdish minority doesn't for the most part trust Turkey."

Salafism on Israeli wings
However, in the final analysis, only Israel can resolve Erdogan's dilemma. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated over the weekend, "Syria has advanced anti-aircraft missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and elements of chemical weapons. I directed the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] to prepare for a situation where we will need to consider the possibility of an attack."

Barak added that the "moment [Bashar] starts to fall, we [Israel] will conduct intelligence monitoring and will liaise with other agencies." He spoke after a secret visit by Donilon to Israel the previous weekend. Close on the heels of Donilon's consultations, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton travelled to Tel Aviv after a historic meeting in Cairo with the newly elected President Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, who assured Washington that he wouldn't contemplate creating any problems for Israel in a conceivable future.

Barak's disclosure tears apart the thin veil of indifference that Tel Aviv so far maintained over the Syrian developments. What emerges, in retrospect, is that Washington kept Israel in abeyance for the ripe moment to physically demolish Bashar's war machinery, an enterprise that Erdogan is unwilling or incapable of undertaking.

Most certainly, Erdogan was in the loop that he was going to partner Barak, but being a shrewd politician he kept up an appearance of agonizing publicly over the Syrian crisis - while, of course, covertly fueling it.

Simply put, Washington has outwitted Moscow and Beijing. It kept assuring Russia and China that a military intervention by the US all by itself or a Libya-style NATO operation was the last thing on Obama's mind. No doubt, Obama kept its word.

What is unfolding is a startlingly refreshing sight - Salafism riding the wings of the Israeli air force and landing in Damascus. Erdogan will now set out with renewed vigor to shake up the Bashar tree in Damascus, while any day from now Barak will begin chopping off the tree's branches in a lightning sweep.

Erdogan and Barak will make the Bashar tree so naked and helpless that it will realize the futility of standing upright any more. There is no "military intervention" involved here, no NATO operations, no Libya-like analogy can be drawn. Nor is Erdogan to order his army to march into Syria.

Secretary of State Clinton would say this is the "smart power". In a magnificent essay titled "The Art of Smart Power" penned by her last week, as she surveyed the curious twist to the tale of the Arab Spring, Clinton wrote that the US is nowadays "leading in new ways". [1]

Clinton underscored that US is expanding its "foreign-policy toolbox [to] integrate every asset and partner, and fundamentally change the way we [US] do business ... [the] common thread running through all our efforts is a commitment to adapt America's global leadership for the needs of a changing world."

At the end of the day, Erdogan will bite the bullet, which is greased with pork fat. The plain truth is that Israel is going to complete the messy job for him in Syria.

Erdogan has no choice but to accept that he belongs to Washington's "toolbox" - nothing more, nothing less. He was never destined for the role to lead the Muslim Middle East. The West was merely pandering to his well-known vanity. That role is Washington's exclusive prerogative.

Note:
1. The art of smart power, New Statesman, July 18, 2012.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)


It seems to me likely that while the US is clearly cooperating with Saudi and Qatari terrorists in Syria they will also agree to or even encourage the activities of Sunni terrorists in Iraq, probably to punish Iraq for refusing to allow US garrisons to remain in Iraq.

(Political)
Previously the US had economic power to achieve its political ends but now only military power remains. They try to insinuate themselves into Central Asia to try and threaten from all sides China, Russia, Iran if it survives, and their own satellites. But they are in a hurry, because their economy and that of most of their important followers is deteriorating. It is kept from collapse by trillions of dollars created from thin air. See for some of the consequences
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Kurt

Junior Member
The issue seems more multilayered to me and each invasion showed a fractioned elite that turned to successful infighting with outside support in order to realign the money and power grid. From a political point of view, these new regimes are not less stable than the old ones after they have made their bloody transitional phase during which they get a solar eclipse on certain news transmissions. It's possible that they will be more totalitarian "democracies", a concept that might haunt more than the Middle East.
Assessing the US economy as part of that perspective is very interesting. The UK and the USA are increasingly reliant on their controls of the financial grid to realign wealth to their rich in an ever widening legal sanctioned scissor scheme. An elite can stabilize by creating a significant distance to upstarts. This stabilization comes at a price, reduced chances for personal ambitions and economic activity. I'm not sure where this wind is taking us, but it might be a route to re-enable more violence.
 

delft

Brigadier
Violence is a constant theme in our World. We see thirty rebel movements operating in Dafur. The area is unable to support so many "rebels", so they must be sponsored by outside powers with no interest in the political development of the area, inside or outside Sudan. I suppose the main interest of the sponsors was in the oil of South Sudan and the violence in Dafur was meant to distract the Sudanese army.
We saw the same in Libya. Disparate rebels were sponsored from outside and when they seemed to fail NATO bombing was used to "protect" them. There was no interest in the political development after the take over because the people concerned don't live in the country.
We see doday that many Syrian "rebel" groups are talking in Rome, while some others are excluded. Even after 16 months of "civil war" they are not interested in cooperating and organizing for politics after Assad because they are all sponsored by outside powers - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US and other Western countries.

Democracy of whatever kind ( it operates very differently is all Western countries, British, German, Belgian, French, Danish or Dutch, all countries living in close proximity, have very different political traditions and institutions ) can only develop when outside interference can be kept low.
 

Kurt

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Translation of the title:"War in Syria: How the the West helps - SPIEGEL ONLINE"
That's a priceless piece of German journalism that explains how we - the united democratic West - already help in the Syrian war and what more options "we" consider to help.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is the most widespread news source among German students and the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, although some call it
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(the most important German tabloid) for would-be-intellectuals.

It says that airstrikes are still too expensive to conduct because of the outstanding Syrian air defence, but we - the helpful West fighting for democracy - have found a way to help the rebels. We train them, arm them, give them intelligence on targets and help defect more Syrians with military training, especially officers. That's all done in order to topple the butchers currently ruling this country. It's even discussed to send special forces as military advisors to better lead the rebel troops on the ground.

Intervention Wie der Westen in Syrien heimlich Krieg führt

Aus Beirut berichtet Raniah Salloum
Aufstand in Syrien: Auf der Flucht vor dem Krieg
Fotos
AFP

Der Krieg in Syrien wird brutaler, selbst der Uno-Generalsekretär fordert ein Eingreifen. Experten halten einen Einmarsch oder Luftangriffe dennoch weiter für unwahrscheinlich - der Westen hat jedoch schon längst in Syrien interveniert.
Info

Schwer lässt sich vorstellen, dass der Krieg in Syrien noch brutaler werden könnte. Dennoch scheint sich die Lage für die Bevölkerung mit jeder weiteren Woche zuzuspitzen. Selbst die Luftwaffe wird inzwischen gegen die Bevölkerung eingesetzt. Es mehren sich auch Berichte von Übergriffen der Rebellen auf Familien, die sie für regimetreu halten.

ANZEIGE
Die Forderungen nach einem Eingriff der internationalen Gemeinschaft werden lauter. Der eigentlich als zurückhaltend geltende Uno-Generalsekretär Ban Ki Moon appellierte am Mittwoch in einer Rede: "Schiebt es nicht länger auf! Schließt Euch zusammen! Handelt!". Und die arabischen Staaten wollen in der nächsten Uno-Vollversammlung eine eigene Resolution einbringen.

Es sind weniger die steigenden Opferzahlen, die der Diskussion um eine Intervention in diesen Tagen eine neue Schubkraft verleihen, als der näher rückende Kollaps des Regimes. Der türkische Premier Erdogan kündigte bereits am Donnerstag an, Assad und sein Zirkel stünden kurz vorm Abgang.

Groß ist die Angst vor einem Machtvakuum, von dem al-Qaida-nahe Islamisten profitieren und möglicherweise sogar die Chemiewaffen des Regimes erbeuten könnten. Auch wächst die Sorge, dass der Krieg sich auf die Nachbarländer ausbreitet und selbst nach einem Sturz von Baschar al-Assad entlang konfessioneller Linien weiter tobt.

Der Westen sieht nicht tatenlos zu

"Ein Einmarsch oder Bombardierungen sind derzeit nach wie vor unwahrscheinlich", sagt Thomas Pierret, Syrien-Experte an der Universität von Edinburgh, SPIEGEL ONLINE. Als zu hoch werden die Kosten eingeschätzt - an Geld und an Menschenleben. Die Zahl ziviler Opfer wäre groß, denn die ausgezeichnete syrische Luftabwehr ist häufig in Wohngebieten installiert, ebenso wie Geheimdienst- und Militärzentralen.

Der Einsatz wäre langwierig und teuer. Angesichts der Schuldenkrise im Westen schreibt der britische Ex-Militär Richard Kemp in einer neuen Analyse für den Londoner Sicherheits-Think-Tank RUSI: "Eine große multinationale Operation, wie sie für Syrien notwendig würde, würde man derzeit nur führen, wenn das eigene Überleben auf dem Spiel stünde".

Doch der Westen sieht nicht tatenlos zu. Markus Kaim, Experte für Sicherheitspolitik bei der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin, sagt: "Man kann inzwischen von einem militärischen Engagement sprechen."

ANZEIGE
Kaim listete in einer Analyse im Februar die verschiedenen Optionen eines Eingreifens auf. Einige davon werden mittlerweile umgesetzt.

Rebellen-Ausbildung: Im Irak und in Saudi-Arabien sollen syrische Aufständische von Ex-Mitarbeitern der britischen Spezialeinheit ausgebildet werden, berichten britische Zeitungen.

Bewaffnung der Aufständischen: Die USA helfen seit Mai Katar und Saudi-Arabien bei deren Waffenlieferungen an die Aufständischen, melden amerikanische Zeitungen.

Hilfe bei der Desertion hochrangiger Regime-Mitglieder: Frankreich bestätigt, dem Ex-Assad-Vertrauten Manaf Tlass bei der Ausreise geholfen zu haben. Er lebt derzeit in Paris.

Einsatz von Aufklärungsdrohnen: Ein US-Beamter bestätigt im Februar dem Fernsehsender NBC, dass "einige" amerikanische Drohnen über Syrien im Einsatz sind.

Mobilisierung von Spezialeinheiten in der Region: Die USA, Großbritannien, Frankreich, Jordanien und Israel haben bestätigt, Spezialeinheiten in Bereitschaft versetzt zu haben. Diese sollen im Falle eines Sturzes von Baschar al-Assad die Chemiewaffen des Regimes sichern.

Weitere Schritte, die möglicherweise bereits unternommen werden, aber bisher nicht bestätigt wurden:

Cyberangriffe: Angriffe könnten sich gegen die Kontroll- und Kommunikationssysteme des syrischen Militärs richten. Auch zivile Infrastruktur wie Radio, Fernsehen, Telefonnetze oder der Flugverkehr könnten attackiert werden. Möglicherweise kam es im zivilen Bereich bereits zu ersten Angriffen. So berichteten Syrer aus Damaskus SPIEGEL ONLINE, dass das Festnetz in Stadtvierteln, wo hochrangige Unterstützer des Regimes leben und viele Ministerien angesiedelt sind, seit Mitte Juli gestört ist. Die syrische Regierung warnte am Sonntag, dass das Staatsfernsehen von Aufständischen gehackt werden könnte.

Aufklärung für die Aufständischen: Die Bilder der Drohnen könnten den Milizen zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Auch könnte Personal in Syrien zur Erkundung eingesetzt werden. Im Norden des Landes scheint dies inzwischen möglich.

Spezialkräfte innerhalb von Syrien: In Libyen wurden den Aufständischen Militärberater zur Seite gestellt, um ihre Schlagkraft zu erhöhen. Dies wäre auch in Syrien denkbar, zumal nach Berichten des britischen "Guardian" bereits zwischen Dezember und Februar zwei US-Geheimdienstler in der syrischen Stadt Homs waren, um die Rebellen beim Aufbau von Führungsstrukturen zu unterstützen.

Dass es zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt doch noch zu einem Einmarsch kommen könnte, halten Experten allerdings durchaus für denkbar. "Die Frage wird sich in dem Moment aufdrängen, in dem das Regime bereits gefallen ist - aufgrund der Angst vor einem Vakuum", sagt Thomas Pierret. Ein solcher Einsatz wäre jedoch ebenfalls kompliziert, glaubt er. "Ausländische Truppen, die dann einmarschieren, würden wie Besatzer behandelt".
They finally changed the title, here's the full German text.
 
Last edited:

escobar

Brigadier
...If Syria falls, it could easily start a domino effect that will lead to the fall of Iran. America sees that as a great thing and is doing all it can to help it to come to pass. But it is not considering the long term consequences and risks that will be paid for such a 'victory'.

Why should US care about a domino effect? The fall of syria and iran is good for them. What happens after don't matter a lot. After, if the situation stabilizes great (make sure it will be under a pro-US gov); if not, either you have a situation similar to somali and they intervene in the name of terrorism for a long war (which will turn their military machine for a good ten years) either you have a situation similar to somali and they do nothing. In all cases there will not be an anti-US gov in those countries. That is their goal.
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
Here is an article by Peter Lee commenting on the position of China in the Syrian question:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Syrian wheel of fortune spins China's way
By Peter Lee

The question before the People's Republic of China (PRC) leadership is how badly it misplayed its hand on Syria. Or did it? Certainly, the solution advocated by Russia and China - a coordinated international initiative to sideline the insurrection in favor of a negotiated political settlement between the Assad regime and its domestic opponents - is a bloody shambles.

As articulated in the Annan plan, it might have been a workable, even desirable option for the Syrian people as well as the Assad regime.

But Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey were determined not to let it happen. And the United States, in another case of the Middle Eastern tail wagging the American dog, has downsized its dreams of liberal-democratic revolution for the reality of regime collapse driven in significant part by domestic thugs and opportunists, money and arms funneled in by conservative Gulf regimes, violent Islamist adventurism, and neo-Ottoman overreach by Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Erdogan.

But a funny thing happened last week. The Assad regime didn't collapse, despite an orchestrated, nation-wide assault (coordinated, we can assume, by the crack strategists of the international anti-Assad coalition): a decapitating terrorist bombing in the national security directorate, near-simultaneous armed uprisings in the main regime strongholds of Damascus and Aleppo, and the seizure of many of Syria's official border crossings with Iraq and Turkey.

The border adventures revealed some holes in the insurgents' game, as far as showing their ability to operate independently outside of their strongholds to hold territory, and in the vital area of image management.

Juan Cole of the University of Michigan laid out the big picture strategic thinking behind some of the border seizures on his blog, Informed Comment:
If the FSA can take the third crossing from Iraq, at Walid, they can control truck traffic into Syria from Iraq, starving the regime. The border is long and porous, but big trucks need metalled roads, which are few and go through the checkpoints. Some 70% of goods coming into Syria were coming from Iraq, because Europe cut off trade with the Baath regime of Bashar al-Assad. The rebels are increasingly in a position to block that trade or direct it to their strongholds. [1]
According to an Iraqi deputy minister of the interior, the units that seized the border were perhaps not the goodwill ambassadors that the Syrian opposition or Dr Cole might have hoped for:
The top official said Iraqi border guards had witnessed the Free Syrian Army take control of a border outpost, detain a Syrian army lieutenant colonel, and then cut off his arms and legs.

"Then they executed 22 Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi soldiers." [2]
They reportedly also raised the al-Qaeda flag.

The forces participating in the operation at the Turkish border crossings were also an interesting bunch - and certainly not all local Syrian insurgents, as AFP reported:
By Saturday evening, a group of some 150 foreign fighters describing themselves as Islamists had taken control of the post.

These fighters were not at the site on Friday, when rebel fighters captured the post.

Some of the fighters said they belonged to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), while others claimed allegiance to the Shura Taliban. They were armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles, rocket launchers and improvised mines.

The fighters identified themselves as coming from a number of countries: Algeria, France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates - and the Russian republic of Chechnya… [3]
The operation also had a distinct whiff of Taliban-at-the-Khyber-Pass about it, as the fighters looted and, in some cases, torched more than two dozen Turkish trucks, to the embarrassment of the Erdogan government.

Aside from occupation of frontier posts by the kind of hardened foreign Islamist fighters that, before Bashar al-Assad's removal became a pressing priority, served as the West's ultimate symbol of terrorism run amok, things have gotten quite lively at the Syria/Turkish border.

It is alleged that, in order to fill the vacuum left by the departure of Syrian border forces to fight the insurgents in the heartland, the Syrian regime has turned over local security to Syrian Kurdish political groups, and Kurdish flags are flying all over Syria's northeast.

Not to be left out of the rumpus, the president of the virtually-independent region of Iraqi Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani, announced that Syrian Kurd army deserters sheltering in northern Iraq have been organized into an expeditionary force that will, at the proper time, return home to keep order in the Kurdish areas of Syria.

Presumably the strongly pro-American Iraqi Kurds under Barzani can easily be induced to inflict mischief on Assad, but at the same time they will feel little incentive to minimize the Kurdish nationalist headache Erdogan has created for himself on Turkey's southeastern border. [4]

Now that the democratic opposition, the overseas agitators of the Syrian National Congress, and the insurrectionists of the Free Syrian Army have all taken their shot at the Assad regime and failed, at least for the time being, attention is once again turning to "the Yemen solution", a k.a. regime restructuring featuring the symbolic removal of an embattled strongman, lip service toward democratic reform, and the continuation of business as usual under a selected junta of more palatable regime strongmen.

Or, as the Syrian National Council put it on July 24:
"We would agree to the departure of Assad and the transfer of his powers to a regime figure, who would lead a transitional period like what happened in Yemen," SNC spokesman Georges Sabra told AFP. [5]
The SNC's statement found a prompt echo from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to Xinhua:
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday urged Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to plan a political transition in his violence-plagued country. "We do believe that it is not too late for the al-Assad regime to commence with planning for a transition, to find a way that ends the violence by beginning the kind of serious discussions that have not occurred to date," Clinton told reporters … [6]
It is perhaps unnecessary to mention that for the last few months the groups steadfastly opposed to any "serious discussions" have been the anti-Assad coalition and the SNC, while Assad, backed by Russia and China, has been gamely attempting to cobble together a loyal opposition with sufficient heft to credibly discuss political reform.

But all of a sudden, it seems not everyone is singing from the same hymnal:
Earlier Tuesday, some Western media reported that SNC spokesman George Sabra said the main opposition group was willing to accept a transition led temporarily by a member of the current government if President Bashar al-Assad agrees to step down.

"This is an utter lie. Neither Mr. Sabra nor Ms. Kodmani has made these statements," SNC European foreign relations coordinator Monzer Makhous told Russia's Interfax news agency, referring to Bassma Kodmani, the SNC's head of foreign relations.

Makhous said the opposition would not agree to accept talks with the Assad government as "no persons associated with murders of the Syrian people could participate in the talks." [7]
It remains to be seen how the AFP or Secretary Clinton - or, for that matter, the unhappy spokesman Georges Sabra - respond to this rebuke.

One catches hints of a possible disconnect between Gulf-state intransigence (which has driven the "Assad must go" rhetoric of the last year and a half") and US and EU dreams of a quick, face-saving resolution along the lines of Yemen.

A "Yemen solution" would probably also be acceptable to Russia and China. Instead of Syria becoming a pro-Western/Sunni dagger aimed at the heart of Shi'ite Iraq and Iran, it would instead become a dysfunctional, expensive, and bloody liability for the West and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

In other words, just like Yemen.

There are, however, problems with the Yemen precedent for Syria that go beyond the unwillingness of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to settle for anything less than a triumphal march into a conquered Damascus.

The key event in the "Yemen solution" was President Saleh getting blown up in his palace mosque. Although he wasn't killed, he was injured badly enough that he was removed from the scene for several months as he underwent medical treatment, allowing a new crew in the presidential palace to undertake the transition.

The anti-Assad coalition had worse luck with the bomb in Damascus; Assad was not present at the meeting, he is still the face of the Syrian regime, and his inconvenient presence makes it more difficult for the international community to claim victory in principle while allowing the regime to survive in practice.

There's another problem with the Yemen solution; although there are continued news reports, leaks, and analyses - and, most recently, a proposal by the Arab League - ballyhooing the idea that Assad can receive immunity from prosecution for crimes against humanity under the International Criminal Court if he agrees to leg it to Russia, there is no way for the coalition to provide a convincing guarantee to him, let alone his family and associates under the current state of affairs.

The fact is, the entire purpose of the Treaty of Rome, which set up the International Criminal Court, was to prevent this sort of sordid deal-cutting.

In practice the ICC is something of an unhappy mutant. Its fundamental premise of "universal jurisdiction" - the idea that bad guys could be prosecuted in the courts of any member country - was undermined by the United States and other countries not to keen to see their political and military supremos vulnerable to prosecution in some remote do-goodery or hostile jurisdiction.

The result was an unwieldy two-tier system. Those states with a masochistic desire to permit other nations to interfere in their criminal affairs ratified the treaty, becoming "states parties". Within this exclusive club, universal jurisdiction reigns.

States that merely signed the treaty - "non states parties" - are not subject to universal jurisdiction. Their miscreants can only be brought to justice by the consent of their own governments or if the UN Security Council decided that the overriding demands of international security merited the opening of a prosecution.

This was still not enough for the United States, which took the ungraceful step of "unsigning" the Treaty of Rome.

Yemen had placed itself in the exalted company of the United States by also "unsigning" the treaty in 2007, so a successor regime has no immediate recourse to the ICC and ex-president Saleh's fate is in the sympathetic hands of the United States and the rest of the UN Security Council.

Just to be safe, the Yemeni transitional government went the extra mile of granting irrevocable immunity (binding on future, perhaps less friendly governments) to Saleh and his aides.

Ironically (or predictably) the Yemen solution has short-changed the law-and-democracy friendly opposition we supposedly cared so much about, in favor of placing a new, tractable regime (best described as the old regime sans Saleh) in power.

This does not sit well with Tawakkul Karman, a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011for her brave pro-democracy and women's-rights activism in Yemen. She has been fruitlessly calling on the UNSC to direct the ICC to open a prosecution of Saleh. After a visit to The Hague, she met with a reporter from AFP:
Because Yemen has not signed the court's founding treaty, the Rome Statute, the only way the prosecutor could launch an investigation is if the United Nations Security Council tells him to.

"This is unfair," Karman said on the steps of the court's headquarters. "They have to find a new way to bring everyone who is killing his people to here, to this building." [8]
However, in the matter of ICC jurisdiction, Syria recapitulates Libya and C๔te d'Ivoire, not Yemen.

Libya had signed but not ratified the treaty; so it took a UN Security Council resolution to place Muammar Gaddafi and his family and associates within the jurisdiction of the ICC while they were still in power.

Syria is in the same boat - a signer but not a ratifier. With the current regime in place, it would indeed take a UN Security Council resolution to get Assad and his associates on the hook for war crimes under an ICC prosecution, and that simply isn't going to happen.

However, if Assad were to leave power, a successor regime in Syria can issue a declaration submitting itself to ICC jurisdiction retroactively, in order to cover crimes against humanity committed by prior leaders back to the date of the court's establishment in 2002.

That, indeed, is what happened in C๔te d'Ivoire, when the current government has turned over the former president, Laurent Gbagbo, to the ICC for prosecution for crimes against humanity allegedly committed while he tried to cling to power following a lost election in 2010. [9]

Given the intense rancor surrounding the bloody crackdown in Syria and the crimes against humanity that were undoubtedly committed, it would appear extremely difficult for the international coalition to offer a convincing assurance that a victorious opposition (which, in addition to rebels bought and paid for by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, also includes a large number of principled and righteously and rightfully incensed Syrians) would not, as its first order of business, call on the ICC to prosecute quite a few leaders of the previous regime for crimes against humanity.

This was a point made by Navi Pillay, head of the UN Human Rights Commission. Reportage at the time characterized Pillay as gratuitously adding complications that would make it harder to cut a deal with Assad, but she was simply making a statement of fact.

So the offer to allow Assad to go into exile with a promise of immunity is unlikely to sway him, his backers in Russia and China, or the military and security officers nervously regarding the red harvest of judicial and extra-judicial revenge that would follow any regime overthrow.

With the Syrian regime proving resistant to a quick collapse, and anti-Assad sentiment within the regime stifled by fear of victor's justice, what's Plan B?

It seems to be Send in the Clowns.

In other words, find an ex-regime figurehead who is at least superficially palatable to the Syrian populace and sufficiently obedient to the foreign coalition, and can also persuade the Assad regime that his first act will be to push a bill through the (presumably unrepresentative, hand-picked, and tractable) transitional legislature granting a graceful exit to Assad and amnesty to his associates (aside from some carefully-chosen scapegoats) from prosecution for their past crimes in the name of reconciliation.

(It should be noted in passing that the ICC is not supposed to recognize this kind of legislated impunity and the victims of Assad and the Ba'ath regime would still have the right to apply to the ICC prosecutor to open a case, but presumably this can be finessed.) [10]

The initial candidate for the exalted role of transition leader is Brigadier General Manaf Tlass, who fled Syria amid widespread huzzahs a few weeks ago.

Tlass has been literally grooming himself for his role as popular leader for months, growing out his military haircut into a heroic Byronic mane prior to his defection.

His photographic prop is a big cigar, presumably to reinforce the image of manly leadership, and he issued a post-defection statement describing how his patriotic qualms concerning the Assad regime's brutal counter-insurgency operations had led to his sidelining from the military chain of command (and fortuitously exonerating him from implication in the worst excesses of regime forces).

He is also, apparently, France's great hope for clout in Syria, as this priceless excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor reveals:
Now, Mustafa [his father] and Tlass's sister, Nahed Ojjeh, are living in Paris, where Ms. Ojjeh is a prominent socialite who once dated a former French foreign minister.

"France has a longstanding relationship with the Tlass family, going back to the 1980s. Manaf's sister … throws lavish dinner parties and infiltrated the French political and media elites," says Mr. Bitar. "When she became the mistress of a foreign minister, there was a national security risk for France, but the president then chose to turn a blind eye because he felt there was need for backchannel diplomacy between France and the Assad regime.

"Given these old ties, France today might be thinking of grooming Manaf Tlass and counting on him to play an important role in the post-Assad transition phase." [11]
Manaf Tlass is the foppish scion of a family of mysteriously wealthy and allegedly fornicating emigres and, by Syrian army standards, also a lightweight, owing his rank to his father, who once served as Assad's Minister of Defense. Despite that, he is emerging as Saudi Arabia's favored candidate as figurehead for the new Syria. Perhaps this is because Tlass, with his embrace of non-Islamist financial and moral values, would present a reassuring secularist face to the West while at the same time serving as a compliant accessory to Gulf interests.

However, Qatar appears comfortable with another high-level defector, one who also happens to be Sunni (as is Tlass), but was an important cog in the Assad machine and has hands-on experience with the nitty gritty of restoring order in a violent and dangerous set of circumstances.

The man is Nawaff al-Faris, formerly Syria's ambassador to Iraq. According to an interlocutor communicating with the As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry Arab blog, Ambassador Nawaff is quite a piece of work, having earned his bones with the Ba'ath regime as battalion commander during the legendary Hama massacre of 1982, the action that routed the Muslim Brotherhood from Syria at the cost of around 20,000 lives in that one city:
"I know about this man, nawaf al-faris, the defecting ambassador of syria to iraq, from the ... the hama area. Hama people remember him well. He was commanding one of the battallions that committed atrocities there in 1982, and i heard it from hama and halab older people (now dead) that he personally threw 16 young boys youngest was 6, from the the rooftop of a building before their parents' eyes.

…he was very close to the regime, as much as the tlass clan, except that he commands a larger following among bedouins in the euphrates area…his flight through qatar, rather than turkey, means that the qataris have big plans for him in post-assad syria. you will hear his name again. a very very dirty and cruel man." [12]
Nawaff might be a good choice in the eyes of Qatar, but installing one of the butchers of Hama would presumably not be the kind of Arab Spring triumph that the West is looking for in Syria. So perhaps the search will continue for a more suitable candidate, while hoping that the remorseless grind of violence, sanctions, and anger will finally crack the power of the Assad regime.

However, when we talk about "events spinning out of control in Syria" we can also take it as a reference to the international game plan for Syria. Indirectly enabling regime collapse through a disorderly collection of guerillas is no substitute for sending in a big, shiny army to occupy the capital and dictate events.

The longer regime collapse is delayed, the greater the risk that important elements of the insurrection might slip the leash, start fighting with each other as well as against Assad, and contribute to the creation of a failed state where Syria used to be.

Therefore, even as international support for the insurgency escalates, the anti-Assad coalition finds it particularly frustrating that China and Russia have refused to vote for escalated UN Security Council sanctions that, under the pretext of supporting the moribund Annan peace initiative, might expedite the collapse of the Syrian regime.

For all the principled talk by Russia and China concerning non-interference and the right of the people of Syria to control their destiny, it is difficult to escape the inference that they are not particularly unhappy with the current turn of events.

After the West rounded on China and Russia for vetoing another round of sanctions against Syria, Beijing shrugged off the criticism.

People's Daily approvingly reproduced a Global Times editorial that stated:
China also opposes the UN Security Council openly picking sides in Syria's internal conflict. It insists that the Syrians should seek a political solution through their own negotiations.

This is a bottom line that must be upheld so as to prevent the West from overthrowing any regime at will. [13]
Bashar al-Assad is doing a pretty good job of staying in power and crushing the insurrection. The longer he is able to cling to power, the more shattered and divided Syria becomes - and the less useful it is to the West and the Gulf states as a proxy warrior in the battle with Shi'ite Iraq and Iran.

Notes:
1. Syrian Rebellion Enters new Stage with Aleppo, Border operations, Informed Comment, Jul 22, 2012.
2. Syria rebels 'control all Iraq border points', AFP on Google, Jul 20, 2012.
3. Turkish truck drivers accuse rebel fighters of looting, AFP on Google, Jul 22, 2012.
4. Iraqi Kurds train their Syrian brethren, Aljazeera, Jul 23, 2012.
5. Syria rebels would accept transition led by regime figure, Hurriyet Daily News, Jul 24, 2012.
6. Clinton urges Syria's Assad to plan political transition, Xinhua, Jul 25, 2012.
7. Syria opposition denies reports on forming coalition government, Xinhua, Jul 24, 2012.
8. Yemen's Nobel laureate calls for ICC trial for Saleh, Tehran Times, Nov 29, 2011.
9. Gbagbo's ICC Transfer Advances Justice, Human Rights Watch, Nov 29, 2011.
10. Yemen: Amnesty for Saleh and Aides Unlawful, Human Rights Watch, Jan 23, 2012.
11. As blast rattles Syrian regime, defecting general reemerges in France, Christian Science Monitor, Jul 18, 2012.
12. Meet the defector: the Syrian ambassador Nawwaf Al-Faris and the Hamah massacre of 1982, Angry Arab News Service, Jul 12, 2012.
13. West wrong on Chinese public's Syria view, People's Daily, Jul 23, 2012.

Peter Lee writes on East and South Asian affairs and their intersection with US foreign policy.

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

It seems the Western countries are unable to intervene militarily on the ground because to do so would be too damaging to armies that have been exhausted by the Iraqi and Afghan wars, so they can't persuade parties of sufficient weight within Syria to do the dirty work for them.
Compare with the US intervention in Lebanon in 1958 (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). The US sent forces, even landed B-52 bombers on Beirut airport, but there was no fighting. Iintimidation was enough.
 
Top