Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Avatar Samantha Ai

Syrian endgame playbook: options we have?

38 posts in this topic

An interesting article from the Guardian runs down the gamut and gambits of all available options when it comes to donating weapons to Syrian rebels. Saudi Arabia is already providing $3 billion worth of aid to the rebels. We cannot simply provide surplus small arms when the terrorists we want to support have many and better than what we could easily give.

Then we have the gambits, true risk, for we have to send in our own soldiers to train the rebels in any use of the more sophisticated weaponry that could turn the tide. We already have suits on the ground (financing) but as soon as we send in boots we might risk more than dollars but men, our men and women. If we think we already have a problem with green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan imagine how much worse it could be if we send in our troops to train certain elements of the rebels while their own already terrorist allies, who hate us, who became experienced fighting us, have us right in their camp and sights?

*snip*

The first question any sensible politician needs to ask is: "If we're doing this, with what kind of weapons shall we 'arm the rebels?' What can we provide over and above the more than $3bn of weapons supplied by Saudi Arabia and Qatar?" Let's assume that those "rebels" who are minimally militarily competent are not jihadists linked to al-Qaida who learned their trade killing British and American soldiers in Iraq.

Let's also assume, rightly, that jets, artillery and tanks are off the menu. These require years of training. What about "small arms", rifles, mortars and such things? A batch of past-their-sell-by-date British SA80 rifles will be unwelcome in a country already knee-deep in more suitable Kalashnikovs. What about anti-tank missiles? The trouble with more effective weapons, such as the UK's Javelin, is that they need extensive training by experienced soldiers to be useful. Those would be our soldiers.

The same applies for the far more dangerous question of anti-aircraft missiles, known as "manpads" in the trade (man-portable anti-aircraft defence systems), all of which require experienced handling. The US, Britain and other countries have made great efforts, but had little success, in trying to track down stray manpads in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. In Aleppo or elsewhere, these weapons may well take down a few MIGs or helicopters; the trouble is that they are even more effective against Airbuses or Boeings.

The next question, and the really uncomfortable one, is: "What if 'arming the rebels' has no effect?" The Syrian opposition knows very well that no "game-changer" weapons are on the agenda. The real objective of the anti-Assad forces is full-scale western military intervention. We need to understand that once we start down the road marked "arming the rebels", we are on a journey that will take us to "no-fly zones", and beyond.

Syria is likely by then to be armed with the latest, and highly effective, Russian missiles. A serving RAF officer recently told me that the Syrian air defence system was "layered and serious. We would take casualties." That means dead or captured British airmen. Our no-fly zone would of course lack UN backing as we have spent the last two years antagonising Russia. We will then hear talk of "safe havens" protected by whatever few thousand British troops can be spared from the baleful, sputtering Helmand campaign. A case-hardened US armed forces, backed by an equally reluctant President Obama, are not at all keen to get involved in another Middle East quagmire. They know that once again they will be doing the heavy lifting. We need to get beyond appeals to false analogies: "remember Bosnia" – the Bosnian Serbs had the support of clapped-out Serbia – or "what about Rwanda" – the killers had no external support at all. We need to be absolutely clear, and clear now, what exactly we are trying to achieve and whether we can in fact achieve it. In other words we need a clear strategy. The last 10 years would indicate that we are not particularly good at that.

We can't just say 'arm Syrian rebels' – we must be clear what this means

So what is the endgame? A full scale Western intervention? If we are serious about winning that is what it will cost and as in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, where we saw no victory, the only winners might be the financiers and war profiteers through our debt and declining standard of living.

Are we willing to embrace further austerity measures here at home to fund a war over there? Are we willing to continue ruining our schools and hospitals? Are we willing to incur more PTSD on our boys and girls? Just to become more involved over there?

Maybe there is no endgame planned, there seems to be none in Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe it was just about a few profiting after all without respect to whoever gets hurt, the Syrian civilians or our own.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the CT's about oil and pipelines are correct then this is a dangerous confrontation between eastern and western PTB. If restraint is not shown it could spin into a global war. If the story is really about Assad doing whatever it takes to maintain power and his allies helping for reasons of their own power then it has the same potential though perhaps less so. The unarmed civilians, women, children, the elderly and sick lose regardless who wins. The region is being re-sculpted no matter who wins. If the west actually arms the rebels with sophisticated weaponry or imposes a no-fly zone then the rebels probably defeat Assad and his allies. UNLESS this is all so important to Putin that he escalates beyond all reason (possible imo) and the war becomes much more than it is now. If they fail to arm them or give them an air umbrella then the rebels lose, and do so rather quickly, as an "organized" fighting force. Syria as a united country appears to be a thing of the past. It looks to be carved up into cantons of warlords. The Russians are probably very aware of the possibilities of fighting in a M.E. country against a committed Islamist enemy. The whole darned thing is like a hodgepodge of bad outcomes - you pays your money and you takes your chances.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Of course the wildcard here is Israel. Should they enter full-scale for their own reasons it will cause more havoc, force regime changes, but the end result might not be any better. They cannot outright contain all the elements or annex all of Syria and rule it forever. Sectarian conflict is guaranteed to almost continue no matter who wins just as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only difference is the ruling government might be an Israeli or Saudi puppet instead of of an Iranian one as in the case of Iraq. If Syria ends up with a government beholden to Israel cannot see that as being popular at all among the current rebels so this is very unlikely.

A situation where we end up with an Iraq (proxy of Iran) and a Syria (proxy of Saudi Arabia) as forever-neighbors poses its own set of problems. Shia-Sunni fault lines and all.

Edited by The world needs you
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that Syria does not have much oil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the wildcard here is Israel. Should they enter full-scale for their own reasons it will cause more havoc, force regime changes, but the end result might not be any better. They cannot outright contain all the elements or annex all of Syria and rule it forever. Sectarian conflict is guaranteed to almost continue no matter who wins just as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only difference is the ruling government might be an Israeli or Saudi puppet instead of of an Iranian one as in the case of Iraq. If Syria ends up with a government beholden to Israel cannot see that as being popular at all among the current rebels so this is very unlikely.

A situation where we end up with an Iraq (proxy of Iran) and a Syria (proxy of Saudi Arabia) as forever-neighbors poses its own set of problems. Shia-Sunni fault lines and all.

The idea that Israel would have any influence is a non-starter I think...no matter who wins they will hate Israel. I expect it to be a Sunni/Shia conflict that goes on for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that Syria does not have much oil

A stable Syria is where a proposed pipeline would lay allowing Russia, Iran, and Syria to compete with Turkey and Israel who already have a pipeline.

They don't want competition. Naturally if Syria is destabilized they won't get competition because a pipeline requires stability.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Israel would have any influence is a non-starter I think...no matter who wins they will hate Israel. I expect it to be a Sunni/Shia conflict that goes on for many years.

Hope not. We can simply stop funding those conflicts. That is their oxygen above any other sources that fuel those conflicts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope not. We can simply stop funding those conflicts. That is their oxygen above any other sources that fuel those conflicts.

I agree that we should "sanction" whoever "wins". Cut off aid and promise to bomb whatever infrastructure they have into oblivion if they decide to attack us or our allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that we should "sanction" whoever "wins". Cut off aid and promise to bomb whatever infrastructure they have into oblivion if they decide to attack us or our allies.

I can imagine the rebels spreading their ideological wings and turning their ideological claws on us if they win. Certain elements from within definitely.

On the other hand cannot imagine Assad or his Russian backers doing so, business and stability is more profitable than schemes of destroying the West.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can imagine the rebels spreading their ideological wings and turning their ideological claws on us if they win. Certain elements from within definitely.

On the other hand cannot imagine Assad or his Russian backers doing so, business and stability is more profitable than schemes of destroying the West.

Raises quite a moral dilemma. Turn a blind eye to continuing slaughter for a vested self interest or act to save the innocents and strengthen those who despise us.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the sentiment but in my view it is more along the lines of which slaughter do we chose to side with and which victims do we choose to save.

As you know my original position was to take no sides, suppress both, and send in the peacekeepers. After seeing the child soldiers, beheadings, car bombs, and cannibalism it is certain elements within the rebels that cause me more concern.

Of course we cannot expect the moderate rebels themselves to tell off their extremists counterparts when they need all the help they can get so it seems to me intelligence gathering and accountability will be our only recourse after all is said and done. Hope the international war crime trials that will ensue are fair and grab all those responsible and not just those who we don't like now.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UNLESS this is all so important to Putin that he escalates beyond all reason (possible imo)

I rather think it is US that tends to escalate things beyond all reason, Iraq come to mind. And of course their meddling in various places since 1945. Russia has not meddled anywhere, has invaded nobody except to defend against naked agression (Georgia), and has not engaged in any proxy war, and does not send drones to kill often innocent people. Your comment is designed as propaganda to make it seem, as always, that Russia under Putin is some unstable banana republic about to wage war any moment. Remove beam from your American eye before pointing out mote in mine. Tell me, were are Russian forces fighting outside RF? Tartus is the only Russian base outside RF, and there is no fighting. How many American bases outside US territory? How many countries do you meddle in? Should the world worry about unreasonable reactions from Russia? I think perhaps we should all be worried about US and your meddling and spying on everybody. Gradually you become hated as bullies with one aim, $$$$$$

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather think it is US that tends to escalate things beyond all reason, Iraq come to mind. And of course their meddling in various places since 1945. Russia has not meddled anywhere, has invaded nobody except to defend against naked agression (Georgia), and has not engaged in any proxy war, and does not send drones to kill often innocent people. Your comment is designed as propaganda to make it seem, as always, that Russia under Putin is some unstable banana republic about to wage war any moment. Remove beam from your American eye before pointing out mote in mine. Tell me, were are Russian forces fighting outside RF? Tartus is the only Russian base outside RF, and there is no fighting. How many American bases outside US territory? How many countries do you meddle in? Should the world worry about unreasonable reactions from Russia? I think perhaps we should all be worried about US and your meddling and spying on everybody. Gradually you become hated as bullies with one aim, $$$$$$

:lol:

So... what was your army doing in Afghanistan? Picking mushrooms? (I love stories of Russian ghosts whispering in American ears in that same Afghanistan that has no luck since Alexander the Great.)

US can’t have proxy war without Russia, you are the other party essential for a war by proxy. Otherwise, without you, it would be plain war against someone, for something.

Russia became strongly disliked as political entity despite their aim was bringing communism (lol, I know) to occupied Eastern Europe. It was done by brute force and spying on everyone. Maniacally spying.

That being said, I missed you so much.

Seriously. When you root for Russia, that’s patriotism, when westerners root against themselves, that’s pathetic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is does the Russian public really care about Syria? No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I rather think it is US that tends to escalate things beyond all reason, Iraq come to mind. And of course their meddling in various places since 1945. Russia has not meddled anywhere, has invaded nobody except to defend against naked agression (Georgia), and has not engaged in any proxy war, and does not send drones to kill often innocent people. Your comment is designed as propaganda to make it seem, as always, that Russia under Putin is some unstable banana republic about to wage war any moment. Remove beam from your American eye before pointing out mote in mine. Tell me, were are Russian forces fighting outside RF? Tartus is the only Russian base outside RF, and there is no fighting. How many American bases outside US territory? How many countries do you meddle in? Should the world worry about unreasonable reactions from Russia? I think perhaps we should all be worried about US and your meddling and spying on everybody. Gradually you become hated as bullies with one aim, $$$$$$

How do you explain all these wars that Russia has been involved in since 1945

Korean War, 1950, Soviet pilots fly combat missions for North Korea

Hungarian Revolution, 1956, Soviet and Communist Hungarian forces crush an anti-communist revolution

War of Attrition, 1967, Soviets back Egypt in its war against Israel by supplying anti-air weaponry and soviet crews to man them along with Soviet pilots flying missions against Israel

Warsaw Pact Invasion of Czechoslovakia, 1968, Soviets along with other Pact countries invade Czechoslovakia to stop political reforms

Sino-Soviet border conflict, 1969, Soviets and Chinese have minor battles on border disputes

Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979, Soviets invade Afghanistan

Civil war in Tajikistan, 1992, Russia backs one side of the civil war sending about 15000 troops

First Chechen War, 1994, Chechnya fighting for independences

Second Chechen War, 1999, Islamist from Chechnya invade Dagestan causing Russia to invade Chechnya ending the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and having Chechnya fall under Russian control again

Russia-Georgian war, 2008, Russia backs separatist factions in Georgia

Those are just the wars Russian troops have fought in, if you want to add the wars Russia either supplied, trained, or unofficially fought in then it is every war that occurred during the Cold War period.

While Russia does not send out drones to kill people they do order assassinations.

Russia doesn't seem to be as non-meddling as you seem to suggest.

Edited by DarkHunter
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These so called rebels could be terroists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To various posters above me. but not all. The usual Russophobic garbage. Russia is not Soviet Union, and to quote problems caused by breakup of Soviet Union is clutching at straws. There is clearly a lack of any real knowledge about the Caucusus in this forum, as various posts clearly show. Before making comments, people should learn history, not repeat propaganda from media and politicians. Perhaps go to Tskhinvali and tell the Ossetians that they are simply seperatists. Or perhaps meet the relatives of the Russian troops murdered in cold blood by Georgians, and ask them about "Russian aggression". How many civilians killed by US since 2001? how many killed by Russia in that time? I am not interested in the propaganda vomited out by US and it's fanboys on this forum, many of you still live in the cold war. Long time growing up I think, perhaps too much Makdonalds and other garbage has affected your mental capacity.

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Of course the wildcard here is Israel. Should they enter full-scale for their own reasons it will cause more havoc,

The last thing Israel wants is to get drawn into the Syrian mess, but the more we push Assad to the wall, the more he will try to do just that. And the Ayatollhas in Iran are of course salivating at the prospect of turning the civil war in Syria into a pan-islamic grand jihad against Israel (lead by the Shiites, of course).

I really do not see any good outcome here. Maybe the best of all the bad options is the breakup of Syria into several areas dominated by Allavite, Sunni, and Shiite clans respectively.

All this could have been nipped in the bud, if the West had not started supporting the Muslim Brotherhood/Al Quaeda coalition.

But I guess our governments are resistant to learning.

Edited by Zaphod222
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the various posters above. Russia is not the Soviet Union. And I do not take any lectures from those who do not know history, particulary about the Caucusus as there seems a dismal lack of knowledge on this forum. Don't ****ing quote Chechnya to me!

I accept that Russia is not the old state of soviets. But I have a very strong suspicion that based on his words and deeds your new/old leader would really like to return to those days. And calling out the US for human rights abuses by someone of his ilk is preposterous to the point of being obscene. New or old, that mindset that energized the Soviet Union was evil. It has no room to be lecturing to any other nation about abusing anyone. And as for what you do not take - apparently you mistook us here as someone who waits on your leave to speak our minds...
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept that Russia is not the old state of soviets. But I have a very strong suspicion that based on his words and deeds your new/old leader would really like to return to those days. And calling out the US for human rights abuses by someone of his ilk is preposterous to the point of being obscene. New or old, that mindset that energized the Soviet Union was evil. It has no room to be lecturing to any other nation about abusing anyone. And as for what you do not take - apparently you mistook us here as someone who waits on your leave to speak our minds...

Tiresome Russophobia from mickey mouse land. As each year passes I see that the words of Nikita Khrushchev will come true.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These so called rebels could be terroists

COULD be???

How else do you call the Muslim Brotherhood gangs and Al Quaeda, who are already enforcing Shariah law in the areas they control?

Or was that a trick question.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiresome Russophobia from mickey mouse land. As each year passes I see that the words of Nikita Khrushchev will come true.

Fear Russia? :w00t: Not bloody likely darlin' I think the youth there will place a great drain on Putin's momentum toward becoming more retro. They have had a chance to see both systems and prefer to be free I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fear Russia? :w00t: Not bloody likely darlin' I think the youth there will place a great drain on Putin's momentum toward becoming more retro. They have had a chance to see both systems and prefer to be free I think.

you still in kindergarten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COULD be???

How else do you call the Muslim Brotherhood gangs and Al Quaeda, who are already enforcing Shariah law in the areas they control?

Or was that a trick question.

He does that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the US owns 3% of the world's oil and consumes 24%, that kind of consumption cannot be maintained without a tangled web of political deals; hardly a conspiracy theory. We end up subsidizing oppressive regimes and invoking hatred and resentment against us. The people railing against Sharia law can't seem to understand that their tax dollars are propping it up. We run into these intellectually confused opinions everywhere in our government, this board as well. Want to really oppose Sharia law? Then join me in cutting the umbilical cord to these despicable regimes who practice it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.