The Gathering Storm in Syria

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by tw

A best example of how to do this was by Clinton in Bosnia. Until deaths are large enough to even concern a hardass (ie me), Syria's war remains a local issue. It is only getting worse because the local 'powers that be' are not yet criticized (even in the Cellar) for their inactions.

I don't think the public call for intervention is dependent on how many deaths have occurred, but more on a cost-analysis of what we would have to do to stop the killing. There are multiple competing rebel groups who will start killing each other if they dispose of Al-Assad. Arming the rebels won't prevent more deaths from occurring and will likely cause more. Plus, Al-Assad isn't a direct threat to US and is an only an indirect threat to Israel. Rebel groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra are more direct threats.

For Western governments pondering whether to arm the rebels rather than merely advise them and provide non-lethal support, Jabhat al-Nusra is the biggest worry. By some estimates, it now has 6,000 carefully vetted men, mainly Syrians but under foreign leadership. Its global jihadist ideology justifies violence to bring about a nation where all Muslims unite. “Most groups are a reaction to the regime, whereas we are fighting for a vision,” explains one of its fighters.

Though Jabhat al-Nusra says it gets most of its weapons from the spoils of battle, it also enjoys murky sources of private funding, including regular payments from al-Qaeda in Iraq. Since it captured oil wells and grain silos, it has been able—more effectively than other outfits—to set up basic services and a rudimentary administration in the areas it controls, as well as sell off goods and oil for cash. It is probably the most disciplined of all its rivals.

......

Yet it is not only Jabhat al-Nusra which expresses extreme Islamist views. Though Ahrar al-Sham has more local aims, its comrades are also vehemently Islamist. So are many of the other forces that have gained ground among the rebels, thanks in part to Gulf backing.

Rebel groups that echo more moderate and secular attitudes, for which Syria used to be praised, are smaller and less powerful.

......

A big problem for Western governments is how to decide which groups to back and how to funnel help to them. The rebels have built informal networks but still have no effective command structure. Since it was set up in December, their Supreme Military Command, led by General Salim Idriss, a Sunni defector from Mr Assad’s army, includes some able commanders but still lacks the cash and arms to match either the regime’s forces or Jabhat al-Nusra, which ignores the military command. Moreover, arms sent to one group could easily fall into the hands of another. Rebels often switch allegiance from one lot to another, often depending on its success.

......

And jealousy between rebel groups over the supply of cash and arms is fomenting strife between them. Earlier this month, two rebel commanders were assassinated in Raqqa alone. Rebels from more secular-minded or more moderately Islamist groups speak openly of a second war to come—against Jabhat al-Nusra.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle...mes-forces-and


The article gives a basic overview of what the supposed rebels and their ideologies. This gives good reason for the US to stay out of Syria completely. However, on the other hand, if things spill to far out of control the US may be getting involved one way or another...

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The article gives a basic overview of what the supposed rebels and their ideologies. This gives good reason for the US to stay out of Syria completely. However, on the other hand, if things spill to far out of control the US may be getting involved one way or another...

Those "things" must spill out so badly that local (adjacent) 'powers that be' *beg* for help. Literally *beg* by acknowledging how toothless and irresponsible they have been. (As European had to admit in Bosnia.)

How much public begging is currently happening? None. Therefore we have no business militarily involved in Syria. (But should be massively involved in collecting facts/intelligence and in discussing solutions diplomatically.)

Why no civil war in Libya? Because we did not intervene. Because enough deaths occurred in every family that 'big dic' thinking earned the contempt it deserves. Therefore ideologies on all side were replaced the intelligent (moderate) thinking. Moderates were empowered because that war was so long and devastating - a good thing.

How many years of civil war in Lebanon were required to finally replace 'big dic' advocates with moderates? So that religious stupidity was replaced with tolerance only found among moderates? Unfortunately, some really stupid Americans (ie Col Oliver North, et al) were so anti-American dumb as to intervene. Therefore America uselessly sent to their death some 200 Marines. Because we let extremists make policy. How many more times must that stupidity happen before enough Americans finally learn lessons from history?

The spillover must be so massive that local 'powers that be' all but openly *beg* in the UN. They are not yet because no where near enough people have died due to their inactions.

If and when we do respond, then moderates who make policy also announce that "We will be the meanest and nastiest dog in the region." Anything less would only be contempt for the American soldier. Which again means three necessary conditions. A smoking gun. A strategic objective. And an exit strategy. Also only possible when the local 'powers that be' finally concede and beg.

BTW, both Jordan and Turkey are slowly moving towards begging.

[Griff]

http://au.businessinsider.com/cia-se...-rebels-2013-6

The CIA and US special operations forces have been training Syrian rebels for months, since long before President Barack Obama announced plans to arm the opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.