Protests have been going on since January. More than 2,000 killed so far. And it ain’t dying down. NYT reports:
Maybe it rhymes or something in Arabic . . .
Well, Gaddafi was in a weaker situation to start with, I think. Assad has a stronger military and a stronger security force and better control over both. Are there any chances this could even turn into an armed revolt, let alone a succesful one? I mean, where they gonna get the weapons?
Just how bad are Assad and his Ba’athist regime anyway? I mean, compared to Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gaddafi. How much reason do his people have to hate him?
Pretty bad. Syria’s been under a state of emergency since 1963, which basically lets the security forces ignore the law and do whatever they wants. The police regularly arrest critics of the government, hold them indefinitely without trial, and torture them. It’s illegal to belong to a political party, to assemble, and to criticize the government. Pretty much all media, including the internet is censored.
In 1982, the government sent in the army to uproot the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama. This was in response to a bunch of conflicts between the government and the Brothers, including an assassination attempt on Assad.
The Army decided they were going to take care of the situation by shelling the city with artillery for three weeks, then they moved in and shot anyone they even suspected of being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and also anyone who moved. At the end, anywhere from 25,000 to 40,000 people were killed, most of whom had no association at all with the Brothers.
It should be noted that the Assad referenced here was the current president’s father. Bashir al-Assad took over on Hafez’ death in 2000.
That said, the transition didn’t change anything.
I don’t see this going the same way as Libya. Assad does not have the distaste from the Arab world that Qaddaffi had. It’s farther away from Europe, making logistics more difficult for NATO. It’s got what is by all accounts a reasonably competent army that is showing no signs of the fractures that quickly appeared in Libya’s, and that has shown itself willing to do as it’s told.
Whatever path may lead to Assad’s eventual overthrow, I don’t think one can look at Libya as a guide to it.
Assad not only has the distaste from the Arab world, but theTurkish world, the Persian world, the Western world, the Kurdish world, and the Shiite Terrorist world are all calling for reforms or for Assad to simply step down.
There are even news reports about Syria’s WMDs, so the neoconservatives must not like Assad either.
Logistics should not be an issue if it comes to a bombing campaign considering the presence of American and Turkish air force bases in border country and NATO ally Turkey.
The Arabs are glad Qaddaffi is gone but they are mad at the way it was done. It looked like NATO installed the regime, which it basicaly did. It didn’t put ground forces but it provided air strikes and paralyzed Qaddaffi’s troops so the rebels could win.
The UN is highly unlikely to authorize any action in Syria. Assad has problems as his family is an Alawite, not all Muslims even agree they are Muslim. It’s in Syria’s constitution that Alawite’s are Muslims. Syria is also 10% Christian and 3% Druze, so that’s a factor.
No one wants an unstable Syria, which effectively controls Lebanon as well. Syria under the Assads is a bit of a pariah as they supported Iran against the Arabs. But this was no so much of a like of Iran but a hatred of Iraq.
The second any outstide force tries to butt in, Syria can throw stuff at Israel, which would invite retaliation and unite the Arabs against it. Russia also has a naval base in Syria, so that is going to be problematic for any foreign country aiding Syria.
The Lebanese proved themselves to be tough, they beat Israel, they bombed the USA causing Reagan to pull out their marine units and it could be an utter mess if they were let loose.
Syria is close to Cyprus, home to major British military bases used in operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and indeed Libya. Then there’s Turkey. Logistically, Syria would appear to be within NATO’s reach.
True enough. I suspect though, that if Turkey got involved, we’d be looking at an actual ground war. I don’t think it would take long for Syria to retaliate. I don’t think anybody wants that.
AndyLee makes a good point about the proximity of Israel as well.
A civil war/revolution in Syria would be a ground war. The question is whether the ground-fighting would be Syrians-only, like the Libyan ground-fighting was Libyans-only (discounting some foreign mercs and NATO special-forces guys). Turkey could get involved but limit itself to air support – almost certainly would, if that were declared NATO policy. As for Assad retaliating by sending ground troops into Turkey – I don’t think he wants to raise the stakes that high. (He could fairly retaliate with airplanes, and then we’d see something not seen in decades – old-fashioned dogfighting between roughly comparable air forces. Exciting movies will be made one day, in Arabic and in Turkish.)
Duh. I don’t know if Assad would want to raise that stakes that high either, but it had better be considered. Neither do I know if he’d want to raise the stakes by involving Israel, but that had damn well better be considered too. Israel is not going to show the patience with Syria that they did when Saddam was lobbing missiles at them in the first Gulf War.
You know, my stance here is not simply that I would disagree with U.S./NATO action against Syria as strongly as I did with the action against Libya, it is that viewing such action through the prism of Libya is a mistake. Syria is an entirely different situation, and would not be Libya II, and if such action takes place, it would be far more likely to dangerously escalate.
When did the Lebanese beat Israel again? All I really saw in the 2006 war was Lebanon getting its ass kicked over and over again by an Israel that, due to geopolitical concerns, wasn’t fighting with one hand behind its back but with both hands tied behind its back, blindfolded, and with its legs shackled together.
Israel essentially slapped the shit out of Lebanon and then backed off under international pressure.
I’m not saying it was a great Israeli victory, but I don’t know any observer outside of hardcore Hezbollah members and supporters who think it was a genuine Lebanese victory.
I agree that Lebanon is a non-factor. Without international community restraints, either Syria or Israel could take Lebanon on a whim. Or half of Lebanon each, if they made a Secret Protocol.
No, no, no. Assad is not batshit insane, he would not raise the stakes that high to save his life, because he could be sure it wouldn’t. Israel could kick his ass alone, and an attack on a U.S. ally would justify U.S. ground intervention, and for once both could expect some measure of on-the-ground popularity. Think about that, compared to one year ago: Israeli and U.S. troops marching into Syria and being welcomed as liberators. It could actually happen now. Because the people aren’t so sure they can take Assad by themselves.
What if nothing he could do would save his life? What might he do? And I’ll assure you, that if for one second you believe that Israelis could be welcomed into Damascus as liberators under any circumstances, you are even more purely delusional than those in the U.S. who felt that way about Baghdad.
Let’s step back for a moment.
Among other dissimilarities to Libya, Syria has a competent, well-supplied, and obedient military, a border with a NATO member, and a border with Israel with whom Syria has a history of belligerence.
All this comparison to Libya style speculation relies on the presence of a united opposition against the regime. There is no such united opposition despite at least two attempts this summer to form one in Istanbul. There is also no crack in the military that can be exploited. Without these two things, helping the opposition militarily would mean invading.
The linchpin country for such a move is Turkey, and they have stated many times they are not interested in military intervention. Operation Neverending Warfare will not occur as things stand now. Eventually the Syrian government will regain control either through making a desirable number of changes to their government or a few military atrocities.
Israel will not be involved no matter what the outcome. Although the Mideast should rightly revolve around Israel, it’s taking a break from its most important concern for Arabs.
Maybe it rhymes or something in Arabic . . .
If a civil war happens in Syria, can’t Israel say out of it? I think they’d better.