Now, since it’s seems more likely than ever that the US may attempt to start something in the East-Northeast region of Syria in order to get any Iraqi officials or whoever else is left. I have some questions.
#1) What sort of stuff have the leaders of Syria (al-Bashar) done in their time in power? Such as repression, or horrible stuff. I figure Lebannon will be brought up.
the split of religion in Syria is 74% Sunni, 16% misc. Muslims (like Alawite/Druze. Although I thought the Druze or some group was also in Israel and not like the Sunnis.) and 10 percent Christian. (CIA factbook)
Question #2: Do the Sunnis repress over Muslim sects in Syria? What other sects are around that I didn’t mention? Do the Sunnis repress Syrian Christians?)
Question #3: How strong is the Syrian army? Will they fall over like the Iraqi Army? Does Syria have strong government-backed militias like Iraq does? Or will the main resistance come from terrorist groups in Syria? (like Hezbollah or what other groups)
Question #4: How likely is it that the United States will try to use Lebannon during this war with Syria? Syria occupies alot of Lebannon.
Question #5: Could the CIA just come in and start rubbing out Syrian leaders covertly?
Question #6: If an invasion is launched from the East, do you think the US will make a front going for Damascus, or do vital areas of Syria need to be attended to before Damascus? Could the US instead choose to launch an landing from the sea on the shores of Syria or in Lebannon?
Question #7: how likely is it that Syria will cave in to pressure and avert conflict?
I’m just curious, Syria sounds like a dictatorship, but there is more to be known.
It’s actually Bashshar in the original Arabic, but for some reason nobody wants to spell it that way. In Arabic, when a letter is doubled, you don’t write it twice, you just place a little doubling mark over it. In the name Bashshar, they just write the letter for sh with the doubling mark over it. It’s a sort of shorthand. In the transliteration, this one letter becomes four.
I think its going to be quite a while before the States trys a quickie , with a decapitation strike. If it works great , it ends the war or does it ?
The problem with decapitation strikes , or assinations as the original post mentioned , is that in the case of rubbing them out , you have to be able to have your own man step in, other wise same shit ,different pile.
Otherwise if your gonna liberate syria , then use the special forces and pick some repressed group, they are probably a dime a dozen and create a popular uprising.
I am under the impression that the Assads are Alawite Muslims, a rather unique sect from the coast of Syria which supposedly has many Christian influences. Also, as far as I know, Christians are very prominent in Syria. The Druzes less so. Some people do not consider the Druzes to be Muslims, that’s a whole other debate.
Anyway Syria is probably even more secular than Iraq, despite its entanglements with religious based factions operating out of Lebanon, namely Hezbollah.
That Hezbollah connection is Syria’s potential achilles heel. Today I heard a remark somewhere that Hezbollah has remained surprisingly silent in the last few weeks - due to Syrian pressue. A rash of Hezbollah attacks, especially one that kills a visiting Westerner or a whole lot of Israeli civilians will be all the pretext needed (as Syrians fear) to make Syria the new third rod on the axis of evil.
As far as Syria’s military, I believe it is heavily based on Soviet/Russian technology and tactics. They have a lot of Societ tanks and artillery pieces, the kind that once made for a fairly powerful army, but now are mere sitting ducks for a superior air force.
An attack or invasion on Syria will be particularly messy though because Lebanon is Syrian occupied, and the two would come as a ‘package deal’. I don’t think even Wolfowitz would want to get involved with reconfiguring Lebanon.
Syria funds and has some ( limited in most, but not all cases ) influence over various terrorist groups, including some Palestinian factions and Hezbollah ( a very complex and uneasy relationship indeed - it has at times been cooperative, at times antagonistic ). It also exercises considerable political control in Lebanon, though not quite as absolute as it once was.
The government is set up in a very similar fashion to Iraq’s, with various agencies and key military assets under the control of close allies and relatives of the Assad family. As in Iraq the Ba’ath Party controls all facets of the government and Bashar al-Assad is for all practical purposes an absolute dictator ( he won the last “election” with 97+% of the vote, which gives you an idea ), though a somewhat less overt one than Saddam Hussein. In general the Assad’s are rather more subtle, sober, and circumspect than the Hussein’s of Iraq - i.e. they’re smarter.
Human rights appear to have marginally improved under Bashar, but marginally may be the key word in that statement. There have been no recent reports of political assassinations or disappearances, but there have been continued claims of police brutality and torture by security forces. Rather more frequently, arbitrary arrests and detentions. As I said, as a matter of degree Syria is less repressive than Iraq, simply because the Assad’s are quite a bit more sophisticated and less thuggish. But it’s still a fairly repressive state, more or less.
For considerably more detail you can start with the U.S. State Dept. report for 2000, here:
As mentioned the Assad’s are members of the Alawite community, which consequently is very prominent in the government. Indeed the Ba’ath Party originally arose as a minority movement, with many adherents among the Christian, Druze, and Alawi minorities seeking to overthrow the influence of oligarchic Sunni aristocrats ( with considerable success ). But in general Syria is even farther down the secular road than Iraq. Islamists have been pretty ruthlessly suppressed witnin Syria ( but not always in Lebanon ), but otherwise Syria doesn’t appear excessively unstable from a sectarian standpoint. However that might be more down to the efficiency of the Ba’ath regime, rather than internal harmony - It’s hard to say.
Smaller ( ~200,000+ regulars ) and while not weakened by war losses compounded by a decade plus of embargo attrition as Iraq was, as a non-oil state and in a post-Cold War world they don’t have a lot of cash to buy stuff anymore and are suffering obsolescense and maintainence problems. However, as it is smaller and a little less stratified, I’d say it is probably a bit less vulnerable to the conscript blues than Iraq. I’d speculate a rather higher percentage would stand and fight, especially figuring in that the Assad’s are not as utterly loathed in Syria as the Hussein’s are in Iraq. But nobody can really say until it really happens.
Syria has a Republican Guard Mechanized Division, which is loosely comparable to the Special Republican Guard for Iraq ( more heavily armored though ), that is responsible for internal security in Damascus. Also the two armored divisions stationed in and around Baghdad are commanded by strong loyalists close to the Assad famiy and can be considered dual-function praetorian units. So can the elite commando regiments ( 8-10 ) and the airborne division. Plus there is a 5,000 man paramilitary, the Saraya al-'Sira which might be considered very roughly analogous to the Fedayeen Saddam.
Syria has a fairly substantial ( by third world standards ) missile corps, which appears to have been designed as a counter to Israeli air superiority. It’s air force and air defense is a wee bit better than Iraq’s, but still absolutely no match for the U.S…
In general the Syrian military seems to suffer from the same doctrinal problems as Iraq, only perhaps to just a little lesser extent. They do seem to pay better attention to developments ( for example they made a close study of the first Gulf War and followed through with modifications ), but have limited resources to implement them, not to mention that the needs of the regime to maintain loyalty comes first.
Insomuch as the bulk of the Syrian army is essentially pinned down in the south facing Israel and guarding Damascus, they’re a much less flexible target. On the other hand those forces are very well dug-in and if there was no Israeli involvement, would not be super-easy to shift.
In the end, I’m not sure how they’d compare. But figuring in a little higher regime loyalty ( exactly how much higher is hard to figure exactly ) and less degradation and damage than the Iraqi military has labored under, they’d probably be a tougher nut. I wouldn’t put money on that, though. Just an educated guess.
Well, since I think the chance of a U.S. campaign against Syria is only marginally above nil, probably none :).
That aside, it would be a thorny problem. Lebanon is an ugly place, with more political factions than you can shake a stick at - Some hostile to Syria, some dependant on them, some purely mercenary. Diplomatically it’d be tricky.
Not legally, under current U.S. law, though that could easily be changed ( since it is just an executive order ). I have no idea how effective such a campaign might be and how it would play out. If it’s obvious enough, it would be a diplomatic nightmare.
Lebanon is inhospitable terrain ( Lebanon and anti-Lebanon mountain range ) and politically ugly - not likely. Syrian coast is also a bit rugged, but possible, maybe driving inland to Aleppo ( Halab ) to link with a force driving from northen Iraq into lightly guarded northern Syria via the Euphrates. That seems a bit more likely than striking into the teeth of the main Syrian army in the south, while stringing along a very lengthy supply line through the empty Syrian desert in western Iraq. But I’m sure U.S. planners would prove that speculation wrong just to mess with me ;).
But once again, IMHO this is fantasy-land. The U.S. will not invade Syria while Iraq is still being re-built - The complications would be enormous, the diplomatic repercussions ( except in Israel ), severe.
Depends on what kind of pressure is being applied and what is being demanded. Like I said the Assad’s aren’t nearly as dumb as Saddam Hussein, but they’re not totally flexible either.
Would someone please explain to me why the anti-American’s on various other boards I post to have started screaming that the US military is going to be rolling into Syria by the end of the year?
Actually, I’m seeing it from “both” sides. Overeager neo-cons who seem to think ( quite sincerely, I’m sure ) it would be a great idea to just keep up the momentum and deomcratize all the nearby ugly actors around Iraq. And alarmist neo-liberals who are certain ( quite sincerely as well, no doubt ) the neo-cons will get their way and end up screwing the pooch in the name of neo-imperialism.
Both groups are deluded as far as I’m concerned.
Not that it’s impossible - Depends how unstable things get. But I think it’s not terribly likely. The U.S. is out on enough a limb as it stands now and I don’t think things aren’t going to settle ( no matter whether everything turns out hunky-dory or not ) real soon.