So in the last 6 months I feel like I’ve heard alot about Syria but I fail to understand the big picture. Here’s bits of what I’ve heard… Civil war. Use of chemical weapons. Benghazi. Israeli attacks in the region. Alliance with Iran who we’re told has nuclear ambitions. Russian interests because of a naval base.
How did everything play out? And what does all this mean for America?
Benghazi is in Libya. 
And it’s nowhere near being “played out”.
Current trend. Assad is winning. Start of the year, everybody had his obituary ready. No idea what might be the case in Autumn. An Israeli invasion?
Point being…nobody knows.
Really? This isn’t the picture that forms in my mind from all the bits we get through the media. The rebels seem to have gotten more brazen in their attacks, and Assad seems to be getting a bit more desperate in who he’s willing to accept “help” from.
Add to this the mounting isolation of his regime, and although he’s far from lost, there’s really only one way for this to end.
You are about six months behind the times. Assad is growing stronger and is on the offensive again.. The rebels are being hammered in their strongholds, even Aleppo is under threat.
Syria’s armed forces seized the rebel stronghold of Qusayr after weeks of fighting as President Bashar al-Assad welcomed the Russian-US call for an international conference. He said Damascus supported any effort to halt violence and launch dialogue between the government, opponents and rebels.
Bashar al-Assad and his family have held the presidency of Syria since the 1970s. During the Arab Spring in 2011 there was a wave of protests against Assad. He responded by sending in the army to crack down forcefully. Later in 2011 the protests mutated into a co-ordinated armed uprising against Assad by rebel groups like the Free Syria Army. The uprising has been going on for over two years since and, in practice, is now a civil war.
The conflict has become increasingly sectarian over the last year, with the two main sects being Shia and Sunni Islam. President Assad and his family are Alawites (a branch of Shia), while the rebels are predominantly Sunni. Hezbollah is an Islamic militant group and now political party in Lebanon, which is also Shia, and thus has entered the conflict on Assad’s side, fighting the rebels in Syria.
The wider regional hue to this is Israel and Iran. Iran’s leadership is also Shia, and in the past Iran has used Syria and Hezbollah as means of attacking Israel; it sends weapons such as missiles through Syria into Lebanon, which can then use those weapons to attack Israel (as it did during the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon). Recently Israel bombed facilities in Syria because it says it suspected those facilities were involved in shipping chemical weapons into Lebanon, which could threaten Israel.
What it means for America: Not really that much, actually, as far as I’m aware. The conflict affects Israel, a close US ally, and Iran, an adversary. It also affects the region in general, which is key for US energy interests. Some people have argued that the US should invade Syria to remove Assad for humanitarian reasons.
Benghazi is unrelated; it’s in Libya.
Western governments are between a rock and a hard place. The rightly condemn Assad for the excesses of his military, but are well aware that he is still a better option than any alternative.
Look at the mistakes in Afghanistan. The West financed and armed the Taliban to get rid of the Russians and then found that they had created a monster. In Libya we ousted the odious Gaddafi but are his successors any better?
New twist: As Assad’s government forces are starting to gain ground and the rebels weaken, the rebel forces are being more and more taken over by extremist Muslim groups… the kind the West does not want in power. Then, on top of that, Hezbollah, the extremist anti-Israel Muslim political party and putative terrorist organization is close to seizing power in Lebanon and have just thrown their backing behind Assad.
This has become a true regional civil war with any hope of moderates ascending pretty much now gone.
Benghazi isn’t entirely unrelated. Yes, it’s in Lybia, but the CIA was running an operation that ended up sendingsome of Khadaffi’s old stockpile of heavy weapons to Syrian rebels. The primary goal was to get them away from Lybian rebels; Syria happened to be a convenient destination. Not long after the Benghazi attack, Syrian rebels started shooting surface-to-air missiles at Assad’s warplanes.
What’s daily life like there? Do those not involved in the fighting go to work? Where do they get food?
There must be individuals in intelligence circles in various countries (unnamed) who are gloating over the fact that Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda are in a death match cage fight to the death in Syria, effectively eliminating Syria as a confrontation state with Israel. Add to this, widespread armed conflict developing between Shias and Sunnis all over the place; a typical divide and conquer strategy.
First of all, divide and conquer only works if you intend to conquer, which no-one is interested in doing; and second of all, it won’t be a fight to the death. One of the sides will win, and they’ll have a country.
I beg to disagree and will reiterate my point. Modern conquering does not necessarily include boots on the ground. Nowadays we speak of spheres of influence as well as weakening of enemy forces.
Except that nations would much rather deal with other states, like Syria, than with non-state actors like Hezbollah and Al-Qaida, even if the former are more powerful in purely numerical terms. States can be threatened.
Welcome to the Straight Dope, Mr Assad!
Wishful thinking. Instead of gloating, they are very,very worried.
Yes, Syria was a confrontation state, but it was, most importantly: a state. A very stable state, which kept its chemical weapons in secure warehouses, and could be dealt with through normal political channels..
Whatever replaces the Assad government in Syria will be a failed state—fiefdoms run by multiple gangs of terrorists. It will be a Somalia, but with a little bit more money, and a whole lot more weaponry–including chemical weapons.
And, unlike Somalia, the chaos won’t be confined to far-off Africa.
Nothing is going to replace Assad. He has too much backing. We are talking perpetual war here. Which may be the goal.
You don’t get it.
Chaos may be preferred option when the conflict is thousands of miles away and you’re incapable of long-term thinking, but even the dumbest politicians know to avoid chaos right next door. Every day the war lasts is another day some rogue element might take control of a missile and launch it at Tel Aviv. Israel wants this war over yesterday.