What's everyone's opinion on the current conflict in Syria?

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The danger is chemicals ending up in the hands of any non-state actors that are 'unfriendly' to anyone - not only the West - who does not agree with them or who hold opposing views. The question is, how long will it be before chemicals end up in other places?

Strangely enough, the rebels appear not have many MANPADS, or perhaps the ones obtained from Libyan stocks or elsewhere were mostly time expired?
What makes you think that? It's not like the Syrian air force has been all that active. And they've lost iirc ~60 just Mi-8 helos so far. Though over half of those were lost on the ground, and some were probably inoperable.

Meanwhile it looks like the Islamists have started fighting the Free Syrian Army. I wonder how long before only the Islamists are left.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hate to say it but Islamists, or should I say Wahabists seem to be fighting everyone one at the moment, especially other branches of Islam and secular Islamic states. It makes me wonder if they may be painting a great big target on their back as their many enemies start talking and then acting against what is becoming a common threat.

For instance would the Free Syrian Army consider peace talks with Assad in order to deny the Wahabists the opportunity to control Syria and make things worse than they were in what was a secular dictatorship?
 

Rimasta

Member
He's writing emotionally in a situation that calls for reason. The rebels are the type of people that cut Christian priests heads off with bread knives, then posting videos of it on the internet. So to be honest I strongly suspect the victory of the rebels will be followed by a slaughter on a scale that will dwarf the civil war.
But aren't there many groups fighting as "rebels"? There most be some moderate groups. I've heard the U.S. AID program has been helping the CIA identify moderates, supply routes, and distribution of food mainly to see if it is possible to supply moderate rebel forces with weapons. Trust me , people in the west would rather bury al-Qaeda, not arm them. Just saying, just because your a rebel doesn't make you a Jihadi.
 

Rimasta

Member
Hate to say it but Islamists, or should I say Wahabists seem to be fighting everyone one at the moment, especially other branches of Islam and secular Islamic states. It makes me wonder if they may be painting a great big target on their back as their many enemies start talking and then acting against what is becoming a common threat.

For instance would the Free Syrian Army consider peace talks with Assad in order to deny the Wahabists the opportunity to control Syria and make things worse than they were in what was a secular dictatorship?
Interesting idea for a cease fire, and the FSA and Assad can find at least a common enemy in dealing with the Islamist. And as bad as it was under Assad, it'd probably be worse under the Jihadist, much much worse. Doubt this will come to pass but they are making quite a few enemies.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
But aren't there many groups fighting as "rebels"? There most be some moderate groups. I've heard the U.S. AID program has been helping the CIA identify moderates, supply routes, and distribution of food mainly to see if it is possible to supply moderate rebel forces with weapons. Trust me , people in the west would rather bury al-Qaeda, not arm them. Just saying, just because your a rebel doesn't make you a Jihadi.
Sure. And as we speak the FSA is getting weaker while the An Nusra Front is getting stronger. Not to mention the infighting that seems to have begun. Meanwhile the Meng airbase has fallen to the rebels.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Hate to say it but Islamists, or should I say Wahabists seem to be fighting everyone one at the moment, especially other branches of Islam and secular Islamic states.
And the biggest irony is that the islamists/wahabists/extremists are getting funding from organisations and wealthy individuals in states which are officially great friends with the West; the Gulf Arab states. No doubt the Anericans will have told countries like Qatar and Saudi to clamp down on such support [like what was done previously with support sent to the AQ elements in Afghanistan and Iraq] but whether anything is actually done is the question. For countries like Saudi Arabia, getting rid of the Alawites [considered heretics] is part of the strategy in weakening Iran and Hezbollah, as part of the 'cold war' being fought for power and influence in the region amongst the Sunnis [led by Saudi Arabia] and Iran, over the Sunni/Shiite schism.

There most be some moderate groups.
What's your definition of a moderate?

The reason I'm asking is because mainstream Western news organisations tend to designate groups as moderates and extremists but at most times there's a very thin line separating the 2 and which designation is applied often depends on whether that particular group is fighting for the same aims as the West. Back in the 1980's Hetmatyar's Herz Islami were the good guys as they were fighting the Soviets and also because the Pakistani's told the Americans so; same with Haqqani's group and Rasul Sayaf - now all these groups are terrorists, jihadists and extremists. The FSA may not be as extreme as the Wahhabists but if they still intend on creating an Islamic state and prefer women to wear the veil, will the West then apply the extremist tag on them? One of the reasons used to justify the presence of foreign troops in that country was so women would have equal rights and equal opportunities; no mention off course was made that quite a few rules imposed by the Taliban were based on Pashtun culture and that women in Saudi Arabia were also denied certain rights! Its funny in a way but almost all of the dictators in the Middle East, including Assad, tend to be secular, but countries like Saudi Arabia, which is non-secular and has strict laws, is a friend of the West; and then of course there is Iran which allows its women greater freedom than many Arab Gulf states but is a threat to the region and the free world ....
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Hate to say it but Islamists, or should I say Wahabists seem to be fighting everyone one at the moment, especially other branches of Islam and secular Islamic states. It makes me wonder if they may be painting a great big target on their back as their many enemies start talking and then acting against what is becoming a common threat.

For instance would the Free Syrian Army consider peace talks with Assad in order to deny the Wahabists the opportunity to control Syria and make things worse than they were in what was a secular dictatorship?
For that to happen, Assad would have to make an offer, & so far he seems determined not to.

He could have done that at the start, by having talks, & in the talks offering modest concessions while reminding his interlocutors of the horrors of sectarian fighting in Iraq, & the civil war in Lebanon. Instead, he moved to crush exactly the people he could have allied with against the Sunni extremists.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
For that to happen, Assad would have to make an offer, & so far he seems determined not to.

He could have done that at the start, by having talks, & in the talks offering modest concessions while reminding his interlocutors of the horrors of sectarian fighting in Iraq, & the civil war in Lebanon. Instead, he moved to crush exactly the people he could have allied with against the Sunni extremists.
Well it gets more complex then that. For starters the moderates are a lot weaker now than they were then. In other words he can play the senior partner in negotiations, on the one hand with the threat of radical Islam on the other hand the opportunity in rebuilding a secular Syria. Second of all in the beginning he may have thought he could simply crush the uprising and compromise nothing, while Russia provided some general support. Now he was on the verge of defeat, and while it looks like he is gaining ground, it could still get turned around again. Rebel forces are on the outskirts of Damascus, and a major airbase recently fell to the rebels. Finally Russia is providing a lot of support, and none the less the threat of western intervention is very real, and there seems to be a resolve on the part of the US to remove him from power. This may induce not only him, but Russia, to bring the moderates into a coalition with him against the Islamists.

I agree it's a bit of a long shot. The opposition themselves don't seem to be terribly willing to negotiate, and the moderates are losing ground to the Islamists which may put them in a position where they couldn't speak for the rebels as a whole even if they wanted to. And of course he's not shown much indication to seriously consider making concessions. But it's not impossible.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I suspect Assad will now dismiss the moderates as irrelevant, & hope the extremists will continue attacking them. I don't think he understands the meaning of long-term or compromise, any more than he has any grasp of democracy.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If Assad's Govt is overthrown, it would be long before we are all wishing it was back after we see what replaces his Govt. As for his grasp of democracy it is no weaker than the other leaders in this pathetic sandbox region.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I don't think he understands the meaning of long-term or compromise, any more than he has any grasp of democracy.
Actually I think he understands the concept of compromise very well and probably was taught it by his father or his father's former advisors. Assad the elder was a master of compromise [when it suited him and when he had no alternatives] at different points in his career, he was at odds with fellow Arab leaders, with the Israelis and with the Americans; yet managed to survive. Problem for Bashar is that he may not be able to compromise too much as he would get flak from Alawite elements or ''hardliners'' in his government.

If Assad's Govt is overthrown, it would be long before we are all wishing it was back after we see what replaces his Govt.
Indeed, after the disaster of Iraq, which led to tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and a near civil war [which is ongoing judging by the number of bombs going off weekly - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24328932] it was hoped that some mistakes would not be repeated. And lets not even mention Afghanistan and Libya. Yet it seems that some countries are [for their own interests] hellbent on replacing Assad with an unknown element; never mind that ordinary Syrians will be the ones to suffer the most.

Something is definitely right on when the Syrian army [the bad guys] have to protect minorities from the rebel elements [the supposedly good guys].

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-leads-neighbours-into-betrayal-8839610.html

If the narrative below is accurate, it seems that the decision to hand over Syria's chemical stocks was taken by the Russians; it seems the Syrians were desperate to avoid a strike and readily agreed to the Russian proposal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...w-russia-became-syrias-deterrent-8833037.html
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yep. And there is now a UN Security Council resolution that seems to suggest that this resolution will help avoid strikes, but there is a gray area too. I agree with you swerve in that Assad is probably not stupid. Unlike Gaddafi, or a number of other third world autocrats, he has played his foreign policy cards very well, which is why years after Arab spring he's still in power, has foreign backing, and hasn't been bombed out of power. So under current circumstances one could say he hasn't done all that badly.
 

hellfire88

New Member
It's obviously that Bashar is going to win the war , US has it's own budget problem and internal public opinion against the war over syria , Britain is away from any war

It seems Russia can do alot in future.:rolleyes:
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
It's still early days, anything can happen. With a deal having been struck to destroy Syria's chemicals [which in turn prevented the strikes] and FSA elements reportedly having had talks with the Baathists - A Syrian solution to civil conflict? The Free Syrian Army is holding talks with Assad's senior staff - Comment - Voices - The Independent - Gulf Arab states and wealthy individuals might increase the amount of weaponry and equipment to their proxies.

There's also nothing to say that the FSA or other groups might not open up a new front somewhere. And who's to say that a few months down the road that the U.S. [with a smiling Hollande in the background] will not announce that Syria is not cooperating fully in handing over its chemicals; which in turn leads to strikes that severely degrades the Syrian military?
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Clearly, some kind of political deal between Assad and the opposition moderates would be the best outcome but whether such a merger could happen or survive at this point is hard to say.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The main stumbling block is the insistance of the FSA that Assad agrees to leave; this off course Assad will not and can't do. But I guess a lot depends on the kind of pressure the FSA is under from other rebel elements.
 

2007yellow430

Active Member
I think that this is essentially over. With Russia's assistance, Assad avoided a US strike, and he has the FSA and the like handled. The country is in a terrible mess, but he will survive. Long term who knows, but this time he comes out ahead. Putin came out ahead also.

Art
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Whoa guys, let's not run Russia up the flagpole - Russia couldn't avert GW 1 or 2, nor avert action in Libya. If the West wants to do something, then Russia simply does not have the clout to put the brakes on. In the case of Syria, unfortunately no one gives a rat's ass.

Russia is mad keen to keep Syria on side as it's the *only* place outside of Russia they have port facilities (contrast this with either the USA, UK or France to pick 3)

The reason Assad is still in power is because no-one sees an alternative worth engineering. Don't pretend this is a "Russia:Strong" moment..
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Yeah. It's become obvious that the democratic & secular opposition groups are too weak militarily to be credible without a lot more support than anyone is willing to give, & nobody in the West wants the jihadis anywhere near government.
 
Top