Or more likely protect civilians on the ground. Its unlikely the NFZ will happen, at least from the US end, but it needs to. That would obviously mean curtains for Assad as he would have to fight on the ground.
Livestream out of Syria
- Thread starter ooeat0meoo
- Start date
Or more likely protect civilians on the ground. Its unlikely the NFZ will happen, at least from the US end, but it needs to. That would obviously mean curtains for Assad as he would have to fight on the ground.
Does that include protecting the millions of Alawite, Shi'ites, Christians, Druze or Assad-loyal Sunni civlians too? Or do we leave them to the fate of the bloodlustiful rebels?
No fly zone won't happen, even if it did its not going to be curtains for Assad. The FSA are pretty pathetic combatants who's modus operandi seems to be going door to door massacring civilians who don't adhere to their extremist sect. When they come across half-decently trained militants such as Hezbollah they cower and become utterly humiliated. The only way Assad will fall is if there's a military intervention ala boots on the ground or at the very least a devastating bombing campaign. That's never going to be approved via UN channels though.
Well the NFZ would likely be in place to protect civilians across the board, but it would also probably mean the end of Assad - because just as in Libya, jets patrolling the NFZ would need to achieve air supremacy, which would mean taking out all of Assad's jets, helicopters, and air defense systems, and would probably also involve (just as in Libya) taking out various command and control structures. Collectively, it would certainly turn the tide, again just as it did in Libya, and mean a quick end to the conflict. What would happen to Syria afterwards is anyone's guess.
So the same irresponsible stab in the dark the US and her allies pursued in Iraq. Get rid of the bogeyman first, never mind what happens next. Unfortunately for the hawks, there's going to have to be a more defined roadmap if this is going to garner public support (which so far it isnt).
Also, Syria is not Libya. Coming up against S-300s is a slightly different encounter than coming up against the peashooters Gadaffi had. Furthermore, I'm not quite sure the Russians would idly stand by again after they'd been deceived with Libya. So all in all, a NFZ would be a pretty stupid thing to pursue.
I don't think it is far fetched to assume that the minority communities [who'll be the tip of the wedge most likely] mentioned by Kaos will be on the wrong end of persecution by some of the forces holding sway in the country. And that without a sizeable UN peacekeeping force not seen n Libya, the outside world would have limited means to influence the situation which presumes that they care sufficiently.
All of these brigades aren't about to waltz off into the sunset and give up their power either, this Libya also serves as an example for.
Could we trust the reigning authorities to protect the chemical weapons stockpiles or will there need to be permanent bases established and manned by international troops?
Right now i think Obama and Cameron are content to tip the balance and see what happens, however that is simply not sustainable logic in the longer term.
That's the bigger question - and one that would need to be dealt with before establishing a NFZ. We're basically at a tipping point right now, where one more slaughter or reference to chemical weapons being used will tip things in favor of a NFZ.
The Russians wouldn't have a choice in the matter as it would be unilateral or perhaps another Libya style coalition. Syria's military wouldn't be much in the way of hurdle as they're largely decimated and demoralized after a couple of years of fighting.
You're not going to get a unilateral coalition. Take Britain for example - Cameron and Hague are duly obliging their roles as lapdogs, but the British electorate are vehemently opposed to getting involved, and if they put the vote to Parliament its most likely to be rejected. Similar sentiments are echoed across Europe. Heck, more Americans are opposed to getting involved than support it.
So really your coalition would consist of your wonderfully democratic partners such as the Saudis, Qataris, Kuwaitis, Bahrainis and Emiratis.
Wouldn't really matter if there was no public consensus - it could still happen and in fact things are headed in that direction. A regional war would be to no one's advantage and as your friend Blair said in the bbc piece, its no longer just a civil war.
So you're advocating a war which you submit the public don't want?
Publics usually don't want wars. Public opinion however may shift if chemical weapons are in play in Syria. No one wants to see the carnage go on indefinitely there and one way to end it is to get rid of Assad and then go in with an international force to keep the peace until a new government that is supported by a Syrian majority can be formed and real elections held.
There's a clear discrepancy when comparing approval prior to the Iraq war and this. It seems the electorate of major western nations have learnt that such wars are clearly disastrous and rightly so. Also, theres an irony in neglecting the democratic consensus at home as part of an alleged quest to force democracy in Syria.
There's no irony and if you study international politics, you would learn that politicians in Democratic states don't always commission polls before making policy decisions.
So it begs the question - why are nations such as the US and the UK so desperate to warmonger when their respective electorates are opposed to the idea?
(Yes I know the realpolitik basis for the answer but I'm playing devil's advocate)
Warmongering would be more of an emotional pejorative and not very accurate as Intervention would, given that there would not be any ground forces or offensive intent.
As to why - It goes to do with power, global norms, and regional economic stability, which is also not coincidentally the reason why the US has a tough position on Iran.
I'd say that arming extremist militias and enforcing a NFZ pretty much signifies an "offensive intent". Your second point is reasonably succinct, though at the risk of sounding naive I don't think regional economic stability is best achieved by destablising a secular nation, risking the resulting void to be filled by Radical-Islamist elements.
Syria being "secular" is irrelevant as its not a democratic state, but an authoritarian one that is aligned with other authoritarian states. In the future, non-Democratic systems that lie in economically important areas of the world, will find themselves under increasing pressure to democratize from both inside and outside, which is precisely what has happened in Syria and many other middle eastern nations over the past few years. People simply don't want to live under authoritarian dictatorships anymore.
I'd agree, yet there seem to be an inconsistency with upholding that virtue. The coalition of countries which is vigorously trying to topple Assad consists of heinous, authoritarian states, most of which make Syria look like a democratic beacon. Its hard to take Obama seriously when his partners in this sanctimonious quest of his involves nations such Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain - all of which are heaps more despotic, and all of which have had uprisings of their own violently put down, albeit to no outcries.
All of the gulf states will gradually democratize as global social norms and economic interdependence continue to develop. They're just under less pressure to do so because they are aligned with the US, which is the primary source of pressure for countries in economically important areas to democratize.
You're more optimistic than I am if you believe a nation as feudalistic as Saudi Arabia will gradually democraticise to standard deemed remotely acceptable. I'd disagree about the US being a pressing source for countries being forced to democraticise, if history has taught has anything is that democracy does not always suit the US if their regional interests end up being compromised (e.g see Mossadegh, Allende, Lumumba etc). The prime contemporary example is Bahrain, somehow I don't think the US will be rushing to insist democracy reforms in a country which majorly consists of Shias likely to be friendly towards Iran.
The entire world is going through a process of democratization, some nations sooner than others. The main reason for this is because states who want to be economically viable in a global economy are incentivized to adopt systems that can sustainably keep them competitive relative to emerging global norms. That's why all states, even North Korea, are headed in that direction, even though it may not be blatantly evident in the present.
I'm not an expert on global economics, but something tells that Saudi's huge abundance of natural resources pretty much ensures they remain an economically viable state, in spite of increased globalisation. Ditto for the various other autocratic states in the region.
It won't matter because they won't be able to repress their populations forever. In the information age, people are mobilizing and sharing ideas, especially online, which is causing populations in non-Democratic systems to seek more rights. The Saudis and many other states won't be exempted from this phenomena.
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt calling out Assad and turning up the dial on the Sunni-Shia divide
Morsi wants a no fly zone but not one implemented by the West.
Where does he think that kind of force is going to come from outside the West?
I wasn't arguing for or against any side. My point was that none of the parties involved on either side of this conflict care a jot about the people of Syria. Its all a geopolitical game to them.
Morsi wants a no fly zone but not one implemented by the West.
Where does he think that kind of force is going to come from outside the West?
Cameron and Putin are giving a news conference. I didn't realise what a titchy little bloke he is, his shirtless press photos are misleading.
Sorry to lower the tone of debate, carry on.
Sorry to lower the tone of debate, carry on.
In addition to the above we can now also include Boris Johnson and the Archbishop of York John Sentamu, among those warning Cameron not to arm the Syrian rebels.
A No Fly Zone would be preferable. Arming the rebels would obviously also inadvertently arm factions of the rebels who are far worse than Assad.
Provided that you [a country involving itself] are ready for the afterwards you are helping to create, whichis partly why the army chiefs over here are airing the potentially controversial step of entering the political arena and airing their concerns now.
A No Fly Zone is i believe seen in the debate as something which follow or operate concurrently with arming the rebels, ultimately i just don't think many sections of opinion in the UK are keen on us having our prints on this one, at least not with the sparse nature of the current proposals and further diplomatic efforts.
If the acceptable elements of the rebels were both reliable and powerful enough to confront the Al-Nusras out there it would be something, however there is a greater fear at this moment that we'd be simply exchanging one form of bloody chaos for another.
A No Fly Zone is i believe seen in the debate as something which follow or operate concurrently with arming the rebels, ultimately i just don't think many sections of opinion in the UK are keen on us having our prints on this one, at least not with the sparse nature of the current proposals and further diplomatic efforts.
If the acceptable elements of the rebels were both reliable and powerful enough to confront the Al-Nusras out there it would be something, however there is a greater fear at this moment that we'd be simply exchanging one form of bloody chaos for another.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100222116/there-are-no-good-choices-in-syria/Syria: Where is Britain's national interest?
By Daniel Hannan: June 17th, 2013
Are we really sure they're the goodies?
Every other commentator seems clear about whether to intervene in Syria. For one side, it's a case of straightforward ethics: are you prepared to stand by and watch women and children being slaughtered? For the other, it's a case of national interest: are you seriously going to send weapons to a dysfunctional hell-hole where some of them are almost certain to fall into jihadi hands and end up being turned against us?
I wish I could feel the same moral certainty. I wish I could decidely dismiss my opponents as either cowardly appeasers or unhinged neo-cons. But the truth is that most of those involved have respectable motives, and there are people on both sides who know the country better than I do.
The argument for intervention is admirably high-minded. The Assad dictatorship has been terrorising its population in monstrous ways, fearful of majority rule. This terrorism has produced a backlash, sucking in paramilitaries and radicals from around the Muslim world. Atrocities answer atrocities in a Sicilian cycle of revenge attacks. Tortures, mutilations and massacres have escalated to the point where both sides are accused of spraying poisoned gas. The war could destabilise three of our allies in the region: Israel, Turkey and Jordan. Worse, it could lead to Shi'a-Sunni sectarianism throughout the Middle East.
It is easy to say that we should get all sides around the negotiating table. But, as things stand, the Ba'athist thugs are winning, and have little incentive to settle. The case for intervention is thus a practical one: beefing up the democratic opposition will, it is hoped, create the conditions for a ceasefire. If the democratic opposition is eclipsed militarily, runs the argument, it will also be eclipsed politically, and the war will then become a straightforward showdown between Assad's militiamen and the Islamist fanatics. This may be our last chance to rescue Syria's pluralist and secularist opposition which, while it speaks for a decent chunk of the civilian population, risks being extirpated on the battlefield.
The counter-argument is that, in Syria as in Iraq, we delude ourselves when we imagine that there is much of a market for Western-style democracy. Years of dictatorship have eroded civil society and wrecked the middle class. The unrest has moved well past its Arab Spring phase, and become, if not exactly a war betwen Sunnis and Shi'as, at least a confrontation between the Salafi version of Sunnism promoted by the Saudis and the revolutionary version of Shi'ism promoted by the Tehran ayatollahs. There is, in short, no one to back – at least, no one who has any chance of winning. The last thing we should be doing is pouring arms and ordinance into a failed state which will soon, as Lenin used to put it, export its internal contraditions violently.
Both cases are convincing. I travelled in Syria when it was still run by Assad père, and was touched by several small acts of kindness from locals. As in many dictatorships, people could not rely on the institutions of the state, and compensated by being exceptionally generous and hospitable toward each other. I don't like to imagine what it must be like to bring up a family amid the horror. It is also fair to point out that Vladimir Putin seems to share none of our scruples about sending weaponry to Syria, and you can argue that a one-sided arms embargo is a form of intervention: an intervention in favour of Assad.
But I keep coming back to one question. Even if there is a case for intervention, why should it be Britain that intervenes? Why not Bolivia or Bangladesh or Belgium or Botswana? To say 'Because we can' is no answer at all. There are plenty of unpleasant dictatorships in the world. Are we going to liberate Tibet, or stop the slaughter in Chechnya, or overthrow the monstrous Karimov dictatorship in Uzbekistan?
It's true that, unlike most countries, we have the capacity to project military force. But we should surely do so only where we have a particular responsibility or interest. If we're looking for tyrants to topple, I'd have thought Zimbabwe, where we guaranteed the new state at Lancaster House in recent memory, has a greater claim than Syria, where we have next to no historical connection.
I opposed both the Iraq and Libya campaigns. I'm pretty sure I was right on the first, though I may have been wrong on the second. In both cases, though, you could argue that Britain had obligations. We had intervened militarily on six previous occasions in Mesopotamia. We were the former colonial power, the sponsors of the Hashemite dynasty and the home of the exiled Iraqi opposition. Saddam had invaded our Kuwaiti allies.
In Libya, too, we were, technically, the former colonial power, having overseen the independence process after ejecting the Italians. Gaddafi had presented the overthrow of the monarchy as an anti-British revolution, and had subsequently committed several acts of aggression against us: the muder of Yvonne Fletcher, the Lockerbie bomb and – an act of war by any normal definition – military sponsorship of the IRA. The United Kingdom, in short, had better reasons than most to rid the world of the demented colonel.
Syria, by contrast, is not our responsibility. Even the most gung-ho supporters of intervention admit the risk of unintended consequences. Why should it be Britain that runs these risks? Why should we make ourselves targets? Perhaps I'm missing something here, or perhaps something has altered the balance of advantage. If so, ministers must make their case to Parliament. It won't do any more to claim that they have intelligence which can't be revealed in public: that option was definitively closed off by the Iraq fiasco. If the case for intervention is as strong as supporters believe, then surely it will be strong enough to carry the Commons.
The question really isn't one of national interests as much as regional economic interets of the major players of the global economy. Does the Syrian civil war affect American or British citizens ? Of course not. Would a protracted regional conflict that spills into other nations and destabilizes the region affect the global economy ? It probably would, and that is more so than anything why the usual suspects are going to take action at some point. Arming the rebels won't do the trick - it will eventually take a full on intervention, unless Assad manages to crush the rebels before it reaches that point, but even so, the fact that fighters are coming into Syria from many other countries suggests that Assad will not be able to win under any circumstances, nor will the rebels.
I think Assad can win the conventional side to the conflict involving large bodies of fighters, however there''ll be no-go areas or zones of banditry as well as all too frequent terrorist attacks.
Unless we [the outside world] are willing to make it last, to resource and support a Kosovo style commitment to Syria, fostering the false hope many would see in 'full on intervention' seems likely to turn into a cruel joke down the line. There is so far as i can tell little ot no evidence that countries are willing to manifest their concern to this extent.
Unless we [the outside world] are willing to make it last, to resource and support a Kosovo style commitment to Syria, fostering the false hope many would see in 'full on intervention' seems likely to turn into a cruel joke down the line. There is so far as i can tell little ot no evidence that countries are willing to manifest their concern to this extent.
Syrian rebels get first heavy weapons on the front line of Aleppo
FSA fighters in the hilltop frontline village of Babees, north of Aleppo, man a Dushka Russian machine gun as MiG fighter jet flies overhead.
The First new heavy weapons have arrived on Syria’s front lines following President Barack Obama’s decision to put Western military might behind the official opposition, rebels have told The Daily Telegraph.
By Richard Spencer, Kafra Hamra, Aleppo
19 Jun 2013
Rebel sources said Russian-made “Konkurs” anti-tank missiles had been supplied by America’s key Gulf ally, Saudi Arabia. They have already been used to destructive effect and may have held up a promised regime assault on Aleppo.
A handful of the missiles were already in use and in high demand after opposition forces looted them from captured regime bases.
More have now arrived, confirming reports that the White House has lifted an unofficial embargo on its Gulf allies sending heavy weapons to the rebels.
Last week, the White House said it would send military support to Syria’s opposition after concluding that President Bashar al-Assad’s regime had used chemical agents against them.
Unlike rocket-propelled grenades, the Konkurs – Contest in English – can penetrate the regime’s most advanced tanks, Russian-made T72s.
“We now have supplies from Saudi Arabia,” a rebel source said. “We have been told more weapons are on their way, even higher-end missiles.”
At the G8 this week Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, condemned the West’s attempts to send arms to the opposition, even though he did not rule out fulfilling existing arms contracts with the regime.
On Syria’s front lines, rebels are already using Russian missiles to destroy the regime’s Russian tanks.
Thanks to Russian backing over the last half century, Syria’s army was the best equipped in the region, and its captured bases have handed a limited number of anti-tank and anti-aicraft missiles to the opposition.
But the number of Konkurs missiles seen in videos escalated at the beginning of this month, tangible evidence of the new Saudi supply line.
In the hills above the Syrian village of Kafra Hamra, north of Aleppo, The Daily Telegraph found rebels talking almost lovingly of the Konkurs as they kept watch on the regime’s tanks 800 yards away.
“We have one or two left but my unit has run out already,” said Abdullah Da’ass, a burly, bearded fighter with the Free Men of Syria brigade. “We were given five. We fired four, and took out four regime tanks, and one was a dud.”
Mr Assad’s regime has hundreds of T72s in northern Syria. The future of this war may depend on how many more portable missile systems the rebels are given. In the past two weeks the tanks have made a number of sallies, testing rebel lines, but have been driven back, rebels say.
After the fall of Qusayr on June 5, the regime promised an all-out attack on Aleppo, but it has not yet materialised.
Ahmed Hafash, the leader of Free Men of Syria, the non-Islamist brigade leading the defence of Kafra Hamra, said he expected the assault to drive north away from the city.
Five kilometres north-east lie two loyalist Shia towns, Nobbul and Zahra, where a regime general has raised a local militia several thousand-strong and flown in reinforcements from the Labenese militia Hizbollah.
Walky-talky intercepts suggest the regime hopes to link up with these towns and press on to relieve the Minegh air base, under rebel siege for 10 months, and then head to the Turkish border nearby. Having cut the north in two, the regime could squeeze out the rebels in their rural strongholds and surround Aleppo.
On the hill opposite the rebels sits the regime’s forward advance post, an unfinished apartment block – “full of Iranians”, said a rebel sub-commander, Abu Staif Aloush.
His unit guards the presumed path of the regime’s attack, occupying a development of half-built villas, full of Kalashnikovs and shell-holes.
The regime has 20,000 men based around the Air Force Intelligence barracks behind the front, the rebels say, but has spared 2,500 for this front. The rebels have possibly a similar number, but whether the tanks rolling over the hills can punch through them depends on their defences.
Mr Da’ass, the fighter, claimed that even without fresh supplies, the rebels would still be victorious. “If we have no weapons, we will hit them with our slippers,” he said.
But Mr Aloush said: “We need an air-fly zone, and anti-tank missiles, or if not a no-fly zone, anti-aircraft missiles too.”
The last major weapons shipment comprised rockets and other arms from the former Yugoslavia, paid for by Qatar. However, some were seen in the hands of the Al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the supply dried up, apparently under American instruction, six months ago.
Mr Aloush pledged the same would not happen again. “Every missile will be recorded, where we shot and under whose supervision,” he said.
Whether that will be true for other brigades supplied by the Saudis is another matter, of course. The Saudis are now the favoured conduit, and the rebels’ new best friends.[.quote]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...eavy-weapons-on-the-front-line-of-Aleppo.html
Fear not 'brave' rebels - military advantage is about to be handed to you.
Remember Bush was the warmonger :roll:
Remember Bush was the warmonger :roll:
I take it that you are referring to the statements coming out f the Doha meeting?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...0136611/Syria-friends-back-aid-to-rebels.html
The delay in the rumoured Aleppo assault could prove costly Assad's forces and the initiative they gained in recent weeks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...0136611/Syria-friends-back-aid-to-rebels.html
The delay in the rumoured Aleppo assault could prove costly Assad's forces and the initiative they gained in recent weeks.