Turkey, U.S. weigh no-fly zones for Syria

Then, the Syrian military has a real choice to make. I predict that there will be a war with Turkey, if they try to impose this division of Syria. And, it will spread across the region, and it will likely blow back into our faces.

And that's how we got into the Creeping Meatball war.

Something everybody can agree on.

They can't even defeat the rebels and Syria's military is no match for the Turkish Armed Forces, none at all.
Syria has it's hands full right now, it can't afford another war, especially one that will completely wipe out it's military.

The Shi'ia and Ba'ath Party have very good reason to fear extermination if the Sunnis take control over the Syrian State and armed forces. They will fight because they have no alternatives.

A few may take the cash and defect. But, that just leaves their relatives vulnerable. Not many will take that deal. It may be possible that some sort of plan can be worked out by which the Alawite and Ba'ath Party are guaranteed security and control over the cities and territory they control, along with reparations, while other parts of the country get split off and rebuilt. But, a voluntary resolution seems very unlikely given the generations of ethnic killing that have occurred.

The region is on the verge of a wider war, anyway. That has been the plan all along - weaken and divide Syria and then launch against Iran.

At that point Assad may just figure that he has nothing to lose and why not try to take everyone with him.
Scary scenario.

It's not just Assad and his clan whose heads are on the chopping block. The problem with Syria, and reason a Libya model of decapitating intervention won't work, is because the country is religiously divided, and people remember the last round of Sunni uprising -- the "long campaign of terror" (1976-82) killed 60-80K Syrians on both sides. -- that memory is still fresh.

This is much more intractable than the breakup of Yugoslavia. There isn't as much territory and regional lines of ethnic division aren't nearly as distinct.

what you paint is a very real possibility with the 3 main powers, the U.S., Russia, and China being pulled into the conflict as adversaries and possibly plunging the whole world into another war.
Yeah, I'd say I hope you're wrong, buuuuuuuut..................

And that's all it is. You have no idea what will happen.

and a very real possibility. Why the derision?

who post here about this. I'm not a fan of dictators.

nor the Left any unique ability to understand political-military affairs on the topic of Syria and Iran.

But, you must bring more facts and less attitude to the table if you expect people to take you seriously. Until we see some evidence of familiarity with the former and less of a surplus in the latter, you're just another keyboard with a hostile demeanor.

scenario because you seem to be much more knowledgeable than me on ME affairs.

different levels of understanding, and all should be listened to and learned from. It's those who insist on attaching labels and foreclosing debates, however, with whom I have a problem. My last comment was directed at UL.

Syria can sort itself out.

I wonder if Hilary gets the slightest little shiver knowing she's now working hand in hand with Al Qaeda and the rest of the jihadis.

...through intimidation and force over the majority Sunni. This is similar to the South African white population ruling over the indigenous African population. It just is not going to work. Its an unstable situation that is going to fall apart sooner or latter. No "plan" needed.

They may have no choice but to fight, but they have no means of fighting back against Turkey, especially since Turkey is part of NATO. The Alawite dictatorship is toast.

Very much part of the game plan for regime change in the region, and it's an oldie but a goodie. You have to read this if you haven't before. Here's the basic outline, "A Clean Break", http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm written in 1996 by Feith, Wurmser, and Perle, the neocons in the Pentagon Office of Special Projects (OSP) who cooked up the WMD deception to justify the invasion of Iraq. That document outlined a strategy for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then the Israeli PM, of regime change in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and finally Iran, and a posture of defiance by Israel run (by its Right-wing) against United States efforts to craft an equitable two-state solution. That proved to be a remarkably prescient work:

An October 2003 editorial in The Nation criticized the Syria Accountability Act and connected it to the 'Clean Break' report and authors:

... it is being knocked over. Syria is internally unstable because it is being run by a dictatorial religious minority that rules over a distinctly different and oppressed religious majority. That sort of dynamic usually leads to the sort of conflict we are now seeing.

But, colonialism is the only model of gov't the Syrians have known in living memory. Arab Socialism was an unsuccessful attempt to overcome that colonial model. After the Ottoman Empire was broken up, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and the other lines in the sand were drawn up in the British and French Foreign Offices. The Alawite came to power in large part as the result of their favored status under the French Mandate (1920-46).

Minority rule is permanently unstable, by design, which is why the British and French imposed it practically everywhere they ruled. Divide & conquer. Cut up all natural affinity groups and divide them among various states in the region. Look at the Pashtun and the Kurds - they too, like the Sunnis and the Shi'ia are spread out all over the place, on purpose. Put the second most powerful ethnic group in power. That's Europe's doing, not the Syrians. You'll see that model all over the world, where ever the Sun never Set on the British Empire.

They learned that way of organizing vassal states from the Romans who conquered Britain and Gaul.

... its dynamics and the prospects of ending it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-when-and-whether-to-end-the-war-in-syria/2012/08/10/6089d526-e0dd-11e1-a421-8bf0f0e5aa11_story.html

Unfortunately, you have to register to read it in its entirety so the last page of the article is behind a wall.

If the article (and this civil war) doesn't finish with massive sectarian and regional fighting, then its probably not an "honest" ending but I'd be interested in your synopsis.

... I'm registered so I see the whole thing with no difficulty. At least its not a pay wall like the NYT.

Synopsis:

Right now its a stalemate, the Alawite regime has enough organizational an millitary means to hold its own, while the Sunni majority has the sheer numbers to keep the conflict active for a long, long time.

Our current intervention strategy is international sanctions. Over time the regime's supply of heavy weapons and spare parts can be choked off and the war becomes a contest of light infantry. At that point the advantage goes to the side with the numbers, the Sunnis. This, however will be long and bloody conflict. We either accept that, or we intervene in a more direct way.

We have little appetite for direct intervention. Direct intervention would require a long-term and costly commitment. Our material interests (as opposed to humanitarian inclinations) are not affected as long as the conflict does not spread outside of Syria. Spillover is what we must watch for. If spillover is a realistic possibility we will have to give up "frivolous" half-hearted feel-good efforts and pursue a serious, effective policy.

Given our current anti-interventionist sentiment, it may seem far-etched that we would pursue a more serious intervention, but we should remember that in 1991 there was no inclination to be involved in Bosnia and yet by 1995 we were, and under a Democratic administration.

The range of possible outcomes he lays out are Bosnia (best case), Iraq (middle-bad), Lebanon (really bad), Afghanistan (impossible meat-grinder, always defeats those who try to impose external models)

If you look at the spectrum of possibilities and just simply arrive at the mean post-US/NATO intervention outcome, you come out with something between Iraq and Lebanon. You then have to ask yourself, isn't the cost involved in getting there simply worse than calling the whole thing off?

If we call it off, we have two choices - hands-off, in which case the Saudis and the GCC do things their way. That probably means that they lose interest after a short while, as they usually do, and Syria pretty much goes back to where it was, but with less security and more terrorism and paranoia. The Israelis will probably focus on what's achievable, which is bolstering the breakaway Kurds, but that pisses off the Turks.

The other is that we use our remaining soft power and credibility to pressure the Saudis/GCC, Turkey and the Israelis to reach an accommodation with Syria and Iran, which is something they need to do, anyway. The alternative to detente is a long twilight war with Shi'ia Islam, and permanent terrorism and paranoia. I don't want to live in that America. No thanks.

Turkey is in a bad spot.
My nephew just returned from Turkey and stayed with Turkish friends while there. What they told him was that the main problem getting involved with Syria was the Kurdish question. The consensus is that if Turkey got involved in Syria the Arab neighbors would look at it as the Turkish just trying to end their Kurdish problem and the Arab neighbors would turn on Turkey.
They do want to help the Syrian rebels but are in a bit of a pickle over the situation.

I just happened to be reading a book on the Lebanese drug trade, and in the middle of it, there's brief mention of the CIA station chief in Beirut funnelling money into Syria for an anti-communist coup. In 1956.

Maybe if we hadn't been so anti-leftist in the Middle East after World War II, we'd be dealing with secular leftist regimes instead of jihadis. Blowback is a bitch. We may be about to learn that lesson all over again.

The media, think tanks, self-proclaimed experts are desperate to corral Obama into committing a real crime. I am thankful that he has resisted them so far.

mind you, I'm not in favor of us getting involved in a no fly zone, but I have no problem with material aid to the rebels.

I'm not being antagonistic, I really want to hear why you think this would be criminal.

They are committing slaughters, destroying civilian infrastructure, executing prisoners, imposing "Islamic law," driven by religious hatred... the list goes on. Even Amnesty International has acknowledged the summary executions of unarmed people. The US has no business using taxpayer funds to pay for even a single bullet for these people.

and for the most part, I agree with you. Where I would disagree with you is that it's not the rebels destroying the infrastructure, I would submit that it's the Syrian Govt. that is.
Thanks for the answer.

The rebels are helping to destroy infrastructure in two ways.

First, they destroy it when it helps them and they're capable of it. (Hard to engage in destruction that helps you but you can't pull off, and few destroy things when the destruction doesn't help you.) As they get bigger weapons they can destroy more in their own short-term interests.

Second, they destroy it when they make it a target. It doesn't matter if it's a Crusader castle or a school, when there's a war and a group makes a civilian building a military target, international law is clear: if the destruction is "proportionate" to the military goal, it's legit.

A no-fly zone would have the same "mission race" that the Libya no-fly zone had. First, it would stop planes and choppers in order to protect a small area. Then it would stop planes and chopper over a large area. Then the "no fly zone" woul become a "no-go zone", with "bad" road traffic stopped because, well, the real purpose wasn't "no-fly" but to have a zone clear of any threat approaching those sheltered and nurtured by the West, whether by land or by sea or by air. That zone would spread. Then the "no-fly zone" would become a "no threat zone" as stationary positions, weapons stores, barracks and bases were taken out.

In the end "zo-fly zone" is synonymous with "preparing the battlefield for easy combat by our guys through use of overwhelming air support."

That means that the rebels don't need to acquire heavy armaments. They're simply handed the keys to the US or NATO airforce, with volunteer foreign mercenaries in the employ of foreign powers working on their (own?) behalf. This destroys infrastructure even more efficiently than tanks and mobile artillery do.

Throughout the last year and a half, the Turkey-based armed opposition has lamented the relative lack of opposition activity in Damascus and Aleppo. In short, it was peaceful in those cities. Then fighters infiltrated from the countryside, stationing themselves in certain neighborhoods. Almost every resident with the means fled those neighborhoods. The Western media acts like the Syrian security and armed forces are "attacking" these neighborhoods, and the insurgents are "defending" them. This seems very mixed up to me. Who is attacking whom?

although the rebels don't have the heavy weapons that the Syrian regime has so it would stand to reason that the govt. is doing much more damage to the infrastructure than the rebels.

But thanks for educating me on some of the things happening there.

I read sources from various countries and ideological viewpoints. Thorough investigation is hard to perform, and no one can free themselves fully from the their pre-existing views, but I try to question my assumptions. Just saying, don't trust my or anyone lol...

infiltration activities of the opposition, knowing that assistance would be in violation of the {strike UN} EU arms embargo and result in significant numbers of civilian casualties inside Syria.

Since issuing presidential findings earlier this year, the US has been carrying out a program of covert operations inside and around Syria, including logistical, propaganda, and intelligence-sharing with neighboring states, allies, and various armed opposition groups that include a significant number of Jihadists who were carrying out religious-based acts of terrorism, such as attacks on Shi'ia mosques and other atrocities.

In February, National Intelligence Director Clapper stated before a Senate Committee that we've known that al-Qaeda was operating freely inside of Syria, carrying out terrorist bombings there, and he expressed concerns that these elements would end up benefiting from additional US assistance to the FSA. While some efforts have been announced to try to prevent foreign Jihadists from receiving arms and money, quite demonstrably we and our covert "allies" have failed to take adequate measures to prevent or deter terrorism, including an obvious failure to pressure the Saudis and GCC states to exercise effective control over their own enormous support activities.

As a result, a case can be made the US is acting in complicity with armed rebel groups, outside combatants, and their international support network engaged in a program of genocide and terrorism inside Syria. Of course, we aren't the only ones who might be held accountable under international law, but if there is to be eventual reckoning, the US has become a party to war crimes.

There is no such thing, is there? I think that the case could be made that providing arms to the opposition is illegal, but not due to an embargo.

transiting internationally into Syria. There are some parts of the mandate that limit arms flows to the opposition that date to last year. See, http://news.yahoo.com/europe-tightens-arms-embargo-against-syria-164448697--business.html ; http://www.consilium.europa.eu//uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131963.pdf

As recently as April, US has led efforts, thus far unsuccessfully, to impose an even more one-sided UN arms embargo.

Thanks for pointing that out.

still on board with the premise? Oops.

...because the terrorists are crossing the border and attacking the Afghan government. Does Syria have the same right to bomb the foreign terrorist bases in Turkey?