Syria

[McCollum456]

Shit happens,but life goes on!

[El Pibe]

Whatever the strategy, it appears to be working. SAMs and heavy weapons could really redress the balance.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/21/gunning_for_damascus

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of Mao as well argued as it is.

Mao guiding principles were not to do with the state but with the military and it's civilian relations in its operating areas.

It'd be hard to argue that AMo's red army operated under a sort of negotiated power brokering, he in fact had iron control.

THose principles drove his successful conflict with Japanese, ultimately gaining the experience and capturing the materiel which allowed him to defeat the Nationalist forces after the Japanese withdrawal.

If you read Isherwood's (rather laudatory) interviews with him in 1938 those principles are all there to see, straight from the horse's mouth.

I tend to agree with you that he never adjusted to running a state where that iron control simply was untenable for the reasons you cite, and this may explain why he came up with the idea of keeping China in a constant state of conflict; if you didn't have foreign or real internal enemies then you simply used nature or made up internal enemies or even ideas.

From what I can see Mao's ideas are being slowly written out of history over there as a bit of an aberration, transforming him into a benign patriarch more myth than reality.

[Huguenot]

The more time I spend in Asia, the less I'm inclined to believe in the actions of one person - it's both a peculiarity and obsession of Western thinking.

The idea that Mao could exact such power as to define strategies and behaviours at a micro level is contextually unlikely. Chinese people (and collectivist societies in general) just don't think like that. It's the interpretation of Western historians who think it woz Patton or Mountbatten wot won the war, because that becomes a justification of the system.

Paternalistic figureheads are invoked post hoc to justify the decisions of entrenched leadership. The reality is that these are feudal societies who do whatever they perceive to be in their own self-interest.

There was only 7,000 of 100,000 left at the end of the Long March not because 93,000 had died in the pursuit of socialist idealism, but because the vast majority had found better things to do than pissing around in the countryside with a self proclaimed Fat Controller.

The Cultural Revolution wasn't ideological, it was a bunch of dim witted autocrats who saw an excuse from a mile away and mimicked their neighbours in isolating and oppressing dissent to their rule.

The guys in that blog are doing just the same - post rationalising Syrian micro warfare to fit their own worldview.

They want there to be a central guiding force, an intelligent designer, therefore there is one. They see concerted action where there is only the swarm of isolated minorities.

The psychology of the blog is heroic Christian mythos.

[Huguenot]

Put it this way - if Chairman Mao ever told someone to clean their teeth, he'd be told to get on his horse; if you ask someone why they cleaned their teeth, they'll say 'because Chairman Mao said so'.

If everyone starts cleaning their teeth, Mao will say 'It's because I told them to do it'.

These guys do it all the time.

It's bullshit, and Isherwood fell for it. Having said that, I'll go and read it ;-)

[El Pibe]

No one thinks Patton won the war, though Marshall certainly has a claim to it. Monty DEFINITELY didn't!!

[El Pibe]

An idiot's guide to islamist groups in Syria.

I have no idea if its taking the pee out of real groups or just made up, but good stuff anyhoo.

"The Ummah?s Shield Brigade

Shields, swords, sabres and other paraphernalia from Islamic history are quite common among these groups, but for some reason not astronomical instruments , medical implements or any of the multitude of devices that Islamic scientists produced in the past. One might argue that it?s the result of a selective and militarised interpretation of Muslim history but one better be at a safe distance before making such argument."

[Huguenot]

This is a good example of why I prefer the accounts of eye-witnesses rather than rationalization by absent analysts.

Whilst, naturally, it's preaching to the converted in me, it reaffirms my belief that the apparent organisation of rebel forces (whether they be Syrian or Maoist) is governed by chaos theory and self interest not by military tactics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/27/syrian-rebels-scramble-spoils-war

BTW, I think the Guardian was chosen for this story because of its global reach rather than politics.

[El Pibe]

Whilst I tend to agree that the libyan and syrian revolutions are a sort of pulsating sine wave of cooperation and disorganisation between shifting groups and interests, the same can't be said of Mao.

Within ten years he took a rag tag force of men, honed his skills fighting the japanese, perfected them crushing the nationalists and turned it into a huge force fighting grand strategy campaigns in Korea against the best equipped battle hardened force in the world.

Nothing exposes shortfalls in preparation, organisation tactics and strategy in this world more brutally than military conflict and I can't equate that achievement with the chaos theory of disparate groups of self interested parties.

I suspect the truth in Syria lies somewhere in the middle, a coalition of interests and strategy that is hard to maintian in the face of centrigugal interests.

[Huguenot]

I don't share your confidence - there are plenty of histories that would depict the defeat of the Japanese as an act of collaborative disruption rather than strategic leadership.

Likewise, the purging of the generals who lead the Korean War against the US suggests a Mao leadership that felt threatened by the achievements of others - not one that had control.

[El Pibe]

I have literally no idea what you're talking about any more.

[El Pibe]

Putting bizarre self-contradictions and a penchant for historical determinism aside for one moment, H's original point is probably closer to the truth.

A Nation of 4 million presidents.

[Huguenot]

*frustration*

[Huguenot]

.

[uncleglen]

The first charity campaign for the displaced of Syria has hit the airwaves- predictably

[El Pibe]

Impressive photo essay http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/05/syrias-long-destructive-civil-war/100522/

Blimey

And Brian Blessed in the FSA apparently

 

[stacey-lyn]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Blimey

Beirut looked like that.

>

> And Brian Blessed in the FSA apparently

with Bob Hoskins.

[uncleglen]

It's all getting very complicated. The French have 'conclusive' evidence that chemical weapons are being used; Tory MPs are calling for a vote before any decision to supply weapons is made; Saudi Arabia and the Russians are supplying weapons already apparently.....I haven't got time to analyse all the news that is coming out....any thoughts?

[stacey-lyn]

My comparison to Lebanon goes deeper than just the images of destruction - that I have seen. Like Lebanon, and Iraq, Syria is heading for a permanently divisive sectarian split (arguably that already exists especially along its borders). The deposing of Saddam Hussein empowered the Shiite majority and sparked the creation of the "shiite crescent" that now stretches from Iran to Lebanon. The King of Jordan predicted this mess and warned the US back in 2008. The 'West' ignored this at their peril.

[El Pibe]

Indeed I can finally see the sykes-picot maps finally being redrawn, defacto (as per Iraqi kurdistan say) if not in reality, along sectarian lines across much of the region.

There are now many volunteers from Iraq (leave alone Hezbollah) fighting _against_ the rebels in Syria, somewhat undermining Bashars complaints about foreign fighters, and if they manage to defeat the rebels or at least get them to the peace table with a reduced sunni syria (a la Dayton) then they could be emboldened to do likewise in Jordan and even Saudi Arabia.

The Sunnis have powerful backers too, in the shape of Qatar and the evangelical wahabiists of the SAudi kingdom, who seem to have a similar vision but obviously with a traditional sunni block in the ascendancy.

I'm not sure what to make of your talk of warning, SL. What were you expecting 'the west' to do from 2008, in terms of a shiite bloc the damage was done in 2003 and the subsequent mishandling of the 'peace'. The horse had long bolted that stable by 2008.

Do you mean that its the natural result of self-determination, ie the Arab Spring? In which case what could the west do, drop thousand pound bombs on Tunisian protesters and Tahrir Square?

[stacey-lyn]

Islam's ancient divide - the sectarian conflict between sunnis and shiites - is something that those outside the region and/or with little experience of this power struggle have not grasped before entering into the conflicts - be it for peacekeeping, liberation or what other banner they're there under. The template that may work elsewhere does not and will not work here - be it softly softly or shock & awe or anything in between. As you obviously understand, the front-lines between the 2 sects runs throughout the region. The 'Arab Spring' may have started as a (imo shortsighted) rebellion against despotic rulers etc but it's a delusion to believe that this was truly a widespread uniform quest for self determination, despite the cries for freedom, without knowing that it would reignite tensions along old fronts. The shortsightedness and impetuousness of the revolts has forced the rulers into crisis and open warfare. Which is worse? Moreover, what started as the 'Arab Spring' has now been sucked into the maelstrom. Behind the backslapping at the Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, there is fear and mistrust. Further, anyone who intervenes with Syria risks finding themselves in a war with Iran too.

[El Pibe]

I'm having trouble parsing your thinking, but you seem to be saying that the fault in Syria lies with those asking for a say in choosing who governs and Bashar is justified in shooting them? Bit harsh if you ask me.

I don't see anything impetuous or shortsighted, and I don't think it was naive either.

Those who bravely took to the streets did it in the full knowledge that the likely result would be secret police, torture and suffering. Maybe some brutal repression, but hopefully they'd achieve a shake up of tired, entrenched, corrupt and ineffective regimes screwing over their people.

European democracies took three hundred years to blossom with hundreds of thousands killed for the dream, seems churlish to condemn those facing the same dangers for the same dream as we enjoy the dividends.

I think few thought it would come to full western liberal democracy, many didn't even want it but a salfist 'isalmic' democracy, whatever the hell that is; fewer still thought they'd ever have the means to fight a war for it, but the genie is most definitely out of the bottle.

As for war with Iran, well if Qatar are any more blatant about it they could certainly suffer blowback, mined harbours etc, but I really don't think the West has anything to fear from Iran if it intervenes. It would of course probably unite everyone in blowing them up Iraq style, which is why everyone has wisely avoided getting involved.

And of course the rebels are now looking an unsightly option in terms of what it may usher in, but we've kind of boxed ourselves into a corner on that one with the demands for regime change.

If Bashar could be persuaded to step down then there is room for manoeuvre, but not the way things are.

Ironically it's the old Iraq invasion, democracy rhetoric that has forced the US's hand to back the goals of the Spring, which actually goes counter to it's interests in the middle east, though as a long term goal, if successful it would certainly go some way to bolstering them.

What we currently have is precisely the shit pile fugazi they've spent 60 years trying to avoid!!

I've said before that I think Bosnia is better comparison than Lebanon. Like that conflict arms embargoes only serve to strengthen the oppressor. Certain interventions could achieve western aims if that aim is to force bashar to step down and bring about power sharing government. This will involve planes and bombs and getting an effective third party involved, be it an Iraq pliant to these goals - unlikely, a Turkey posturing as regional peacemaker (as Syria did in Lebanon)- possible, or perhaps a well armed and trained Kurdish force with some promise of independence - long shot.

But of course not every Syrian Army soldier is a force for evil (I'm pretty sure the Alawite militias inflicting vicous civilian massacres are), neither are they even majority shia, this conflict isn't yet a fully sectarian one (though there are places where it is). They have pretty legitimate fears about what the fall of a sectarian state that promotes Syrian unity could mean.

anyway, I ramble.

[El Pibe]

I did ponder on what Turkey might have to fear from Iran, what with sharing border and stuff.

This suggests that Turkey edges it http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=Turkey&country2=Iran&Submit=Compare+Countries

In practice there's a huge gulf between a fully fledged NATO member maxed out with the latest technology and a conscript army with cold war 80s cast offs from Russia, as the Iraq invasion proved.

[stacey-lyn]

The OP was also alluding to solutions which is why I mentioned the Summit because despite any misgivings, Iran did provide something constructive.

Iran's six-point plan aimed at resolving the crisis calls for ?an immediate halt to violence and armed actions under the supervision of the United Nations.? It goes on to propose "the lifting of sanctions against Syria to pave the way for the distribution of humanitarian aid. Once calm is restored, national dialogue must begin... a transitional government will then be in charge of organizing free elections for parliament, the constituent assembly and the presidency . . . the release of political prisoners by the government and impartial trial of those jailed for involvement in crimes . . .committee must be formed to assess the conflict?s resulting damage to Syria?s infrastructure. . . " It stresses at the outset that ?only the people of Syria have the right in a democratic process to determine their destiny and the political future of their country.?

Ok, so it's not rocket science but a real attempt at a solution nonetheless. Sceptics won't agree, I know.

As the main regional ally of Bashar al-Assad's regime, Iran is perhaps the most influential however, as was expected, given the anti-Iran climate, it has been discredited before the ink dried (led by the US). Had a similar document been drafted by the US, for example, it would have attracted applause - but they're too distracted with Russia. We'll see what they come up with in Geneva.

[El Pibe]

God knows that Iran's power structures are a complicated beast, pretty obfuscated even to Iranians and Iran watchers, but that is ironic given that Iran's advice to Bashir was basically batten down the hatches and ride it out, it worked for them.

But there was a decent peace plan put together by the UN, which wasn't discredited, and there were even moments of a glimmer of hope, but the shots had been fired by then and lines crossed.

REally the Iran-US pivot is a red-herring, this is Syria's war and on Bashar's head be it.

[stacey-lyn]

Can't agree.

This stopped being Syria's war long ago. Foreign fighters from an estimated 25 countries form a substantial part of the opposition - the majority are from Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, Saudis, Jordan & Lebanon. And reports paint a similar picture of even more foreign nationals fighting on the side of the Assad regime. The mujahideen's mobilisation in Syria has been swift.

Most of the foreign fighters who are dying in Syria are fighting with the most hardline organization involved in the uprising: Jabhat al-Nusra, which has allegiance to al-Qaeda's central command in Pakistan, and who are probably the most effective and well equipped in Syria and are attracting defectors.

US intelligence officers in Jordan have advised Syrian rebel commanders to tackle J al-Nusra before taking on the Syrian army - with an ultimatum that if they don't, the US will. The last thing the US wants is an al Qaeda stronghold in the south bordering with Israel.

So, if anyone would have a modicum of influence and steer Syria away from this mess to some sort of resolution it wouldn't be the UN or a quasi UN group that has the US at the centre, it'll be Iran and/or a steering body with the inclusion of Islamic nations - and Iran.