Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Only after we interfered. Gaddahfi was doing just fine crushing the rebellion.
The rebellion took over major cities and presented an entrenched force. Gaddahfi would have had a lot of trouble removing them from Benghazi, just as he has failed in Misrata.
Find a single major Syrian city under a similar state of rebel control and world attitude would start to change rapidly.
parts apparently but never full control. But the local security hasnt been able to prevent protesters coming onto the streets.
The rebellion took over major cities and presented an entrenched force. Gaddahfi would have had a lot of trouble removing them from Benghazi, just as he has failed in Misrata.
Find a single major Syrian city under a similar state of rebel control and world attitude would start to change rapidly.
an entrenched force such as what happent in Benghazi does offer a basis for foregn intervention but even if the same was to arise in Syria, no such action would be taken, so while attitudes would change abroad, there would still be no Libyan like action, therefore there is a clear difference in the approach to Syria and Libya imo (which was the issue raised earlier in the thread). Anyway the syrian protesters wont want foreign help I imagine.
Et al.
Despite this there are some rumblings from the States and Europe of diplomatic moves and economic sanctions being considered.
However the army are very close to the regime, from the same sect. There appears to be very little light between the regime and the army as seen in Egypt, Tunisia or little hope of defections as witnessed in Libya and Yemen. Assad therefore looks strong. Furthermore it’s not just Assad but an entire ruling apparatus, the army, businessmen, elite who will want the status quo to remain and will not want Assad to offer reform. I dont know that much about Syria but apparently it lacks national unity, consisting of tribes, religious divisions. Difficult to see how democracy can develop in this environment, with zero structures in place.
However while were all caught up discussing which regime will fall and which will survive, that is short term, these events will resonate into the long term independent of the short term outcome, esp. as some neighbouring countries move to democracy.....a regime fall or survival is not the only way to judge meaningful repercussions..
The diffusing of the Kurdish issue was sort of expected by me I thought it would happen earlier like two years ago but still interesting to see. This stabilizes the Top-Right corner of Syria somewhat and the Northern Line becomes stable at the expense of Turkey once the economic imperatives kick in and illegal cross border traffic dominates. Basically Syria will have no incentive to partake in the suppression of Kurds as they have in the past. Syria's Assad tries to appease Kurds after unrest - Yahoo! News
What I find odd in Syria is because the Assad regime is a minority regime they could do a divide and conquer approach within the country and de-centralize power centers to other minorities somewhat ergo share the power a little bit. This would create a lower likelihood of a all out spiral across the country. Thus far they have chosen to simply hit cities at various parts using their power sink the military, the problem is if they get overwhelmed with a major uprising across either multiple cities or a few very large cities that is prolonged and creates a chain reaction the other options will melt.
The Israeli issue has to change simply because they wasted their time using it as a crutch and outlet for problems within the country. The resources that are wasted to meddle in Lebanon are just looked at as waste by people in the street. Plurality no longer is buying this bs so it has to change to the reality at hand I think Israel should push a little here along with the U.S. to create a little pressure to get a peace agreement. Long term it would be best for all.
an entrenched force such as what happent in Benghazi does offer a basis for foregn intervention but even if the same was to arise in Syria, no such action would be taken, so while attitudes would change abroad, there would still be no Libyan like action, therefore there is a clear difference in the approach to Syria and Libya imo (which was the issue raised earlier in the thread). Anyway the syrian protesters wont want foreign help I imagine.
I would guess it would depend on how weakened the Syrian government becomes and an entire host of other factors. Many times when a distant possibility intrudes into the actuality, the anticipated responses go out the window and we are forced to look with eyes anew.
By the looks of it things will get much worse before they get better
The gifted Syrian poet Muhammad al-Maghout summarized it best when describing the Syrian republic of fear thus: "I enter the bathroom with my identification papers in my hand." For all of the previous reasons, we must see Bashar as he truly is: The product of a cruel system, steeped in parochial loyalties, nurtured by graft and corruption, and justified by deceptions, lies and revisionism, all the while hiding behind a façade of militant Arab nationalism claiming "Resistance" against Israeli-American hegemony.
Standing opposite this is the prospect of a representative and accountable government in Syria that struggles to regain its occupied territory by peaceful means and focuses on rebuilding its economy and civil society. This would transform the whole Levant. It would inject new positive dynamics in Lebanon and Palestine, strengthen the peace camp in Israel, and contribute to the peaceful development of the new Iraq, in addition to checking the harmful ambitions of Iran and its allies. Nor is this a pipe-dream: Modern Syria has had a long and proud tradition of nationalist and secular political movements and parties, despite the fashionable claims to the contrary that insist (especially after the events in Egypt and Tunisia) that the only alternative to Assad is the "dreaded Islamists."
If the Obama administration wants to be "on the right side of history" in Syria, as it was in the case of Tunisia and Egypt, it has to forcefully say that and act on it. The U.S. cannot of course determine the future of Syria; this is the responsibility of the Syrian people. But the U.S. can help shape and influence the behavior of both the regime and the opposition, assuming that the demonstrations will continue and produce a more cohesive leadership. Clear, consistent messages of support should be sent to all those Syrians willing to invest in positive political change. The U.S. should assure the Syrian people that it will use its influence to prevent and avoid sectarian violence, that it will not tolerate retribution by any group, and that it will lean on its friends in the region to refrain from exploiting events to serve their narrow interests. Putting Syria on the path of political reform and democracy will be long, painful, and yes, costly. Developing a cohesive and organized opposition with broad popular appeal will be daunting. But watching the brave Syrian men, women, and children exercising their rights as citizens in the face of one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East leads one to believe that the Syrians have started their long and arduous march toward freedom.
Tweet
Comment