Syrian Civil War Developments

[citanon]

I can't see it. These units would be 200% loyal to Assad himself. Otherwise, the threat of his own generals turning these weapons against him would be intolerable, as is now the case of his own generals raising armies against him.

Col, I don't doubt the weapons will stay under control as long as Assad stands, but what will happen when he falls? If the transition is disorderly, which seems a very likely scenario at the moment, then there would be strong motivation for terrorist elements (Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Shabiha) on both sides to obtain control of the weapons. Furthermore, pervasive Alawite desperation could make the Syrian army itself an unpredictable element. It seems to me that all efforts should be made to ensure the integrity and stability of Syrian army elements in control of the chemical weapons and ensure their transfer to proper authorities in the eventuality of Assad's collapse. As there is no way to accomplish this diplomatically I assume that this will be an intelligence operation. At the same time preparations will needed for meeting exigencies, in coordination with Russia, Turkey and Israel, all of which will have intense interest in the fate of those weapons.

[citanon]

In the meantime:

Video Said to Show Execution by Syrian Rebels Stirs Debate

Video Said to Show Execution by Syrian Rebels Stirs Debate - NYTimes.com
Zeino al-Barri, a politician from a Sunni clan loyal to Syria's President, is killed publicly in Aleppo.

Could this be jihadist influences at work? This is the cost of waiting too long to intervene. Other elements step in and fill the vaccuum. Now this is going to get really ugly.

[Officer of Engineers]

Col, I don't doubt the weapons will stay under control as long as Assad stands, but what will happen when he falls? If the transition is disorderly, which seems a very likely scenario at the moment, then there would be strong motivation for terrorist elements (Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Shabiha) on both sides to obtain control of the weapons. Furthermore, pervasive Alawite desperation could make the Syrian army itself an unpredictable element. It seems to me that all efforts should be made to ensure the integrity and stability of Syrian army elements in control of the chemical weapons and ensure their transfer to proper authorities in the eventuality of Assad's collapse. As there is no way to accomplish this diplomatically I assume that this will be an intelligence operation. At the same time preparations will needed for meeting exigencies, in coordination with Russia, Turkey and Israel, all of which will have intense interest in the fate of those weapons.

There won't be an Assad last stand. He's too powerful for the rebels to challenge directly. It would be a negotiated end to this war in which Assad would be granted asylum somewhere in return for his stand down.

[Blademaster]

There won't be an Assad last stand. He's too powerful for the rebels to challenge directly. It would be a negotiated end to this war in which Assad would be granted asylum somewhere in return for his stand down.

In order for that to happen the World Court or Tribunal must agree not to try him. He cannot be tried at all anywhere and US would have to stand by its word. Something that the Americans may find too high of a price to accept no matter how many lives will be saved by such an act.

[Officer of Engineers]

Idi Amin, Pol Pot, the Shah, Pinochet, Adid, Chiang Kei Shek,

[JAD_333]

When is it ever morally justified for a government to use force to put down a rebellion?

[S2]

"When is it ever morally justified for a government to use force to put down a rebellion?"

When the alternative, generated by the aborgation of sovereign responsibility, poses a greater risk to the populace? Would you argue that "one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all" was unworthy of defense by force of arms?

Clearly this is generally open to interpretation but is not the Pakistani government obligated to restore its writ of sovereign authority over the TTP? The communists would argue that both the Chinese Kuomintang and the S. Vietnamese governments had aborgated their moral authority to lead. I wouldn't necessarily dispute the contention their leaderships had, indeed, done so. I would dispute that the existing governmental mechanisms, properly executed, were adequate to the requirement of effective, fair and impartial governance. If true, then do those men/women (for all their demonstrated inability to lead) not hold an obligation to defend their system of governance?

By what basis can we presume the Free Syrian Army and its invisible civilian authority shall provide the conditions for commonly-accepted principles of fair governance? If the answer to that suggests we're merely witnessing (or abetting) the exchange of one heinous regime for another or, alternatively, chaos ensuing from a civil war wrought of factions whom would all be equally unacceptable should we assume any role other than dismayed witnesses?

Nothing short of self-interest should govern our actions here. Our self-interests lie in the security of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and their production facilities. My government has an obligation to me to assure plans and the means to implement such are in place to seize or destroy those threats once positive control has demonstrably been lost.

[zraver]

There won't be an Assad last stand. He's too powerful for the rebels to challenge directly. It would be a negotiated end to this war in which Assad would be granted asylum somewhere in return for his stand down.

Not after Charles Taylor's betrayal by the UN, its last stand, win or die for tyrants now. Assad is going to either die, create an Alawite rump state or win. There is no place on earth he can safely accept exile to now.

[Officer of Engineers]

There is no place on earth he can safely accept exile to now.

Iran. Russia. China.

[zraver]

When is it ever morally justified for a government to use force to put down a rebellion?

When cannot it not be morally justified, the government has an obligation to the entire populace, not just the segment in rebellion. Rebellion, revolt, insurrection these are all recognized as criminal offenses. Governments are assumed to be legitimate unless there are gross violations of the social contract.

[citanon]

Iran. Russia. China.

Depends on who exactly follows him and how he goes out. I doubt China would give Assad sanctuary in any case. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for China to do it.

Russian motivations would be centered on retaining their naval base and economic interests. Thus, they might if the next government retains Assad allies or if all sides agree to leave Assad be to ensure peace. On the other hand, if Assad is out, the rebels are in, and new rulers make no public promises, then Russians probably won't touch him with a 10 foot pole.

The only remaining refuge in the trio would be Iran. I bet Asma would be very happy about that.

Assad might also find refuge in a peace broker country, eg, Turkey, Jordan or Saudi Arabia if one of those countries feel his presence won't damage the ties they've built to the incoming powers.

[Bigfella]

Depends on who exactly follows him and how he goes out. I doubt China would give Assad sanctuary in any case. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for China to do it.

Russian motivations would be centered on retaining their naval base and economic interests. Thus, they might if the next government retains Assad allies or if all sides agree to leave Assad be to ensure peace. On the other hand, if Assad is out, the rebels are in, and new rulers make no public promises, then Russians probably won't touch him with a 10 foot pole.

The only remaining refuge in the trio would be Iran. I bet Asma would be very happy about that.

Assad might also find refuge in a peace broker country, eg, Turkey, Jordan or Saudi Arabia if one of those countries feel his presence won't damage the ties they've built to the incoming powers.

ALternatively he might negotiate his way to a temporary refuge that is happy to take his money until the can make better arrangements. Russia taking him does have the value that it shows that they stick by their people. On the other hand, you are right that it means the new guys won't touch Russia (they may not anyway). Of course, Assad having nowhere to go is bad news for Syria. If he goes down fighting this hot only gets bloodier, but I suspect it makes the aftermath nastier too.

[JAD_333]

ALternatively he might negotiate his way to a temporary refuge that is happy to take his money until the can make better arrangements. Russia taking him does have the value that it shows that they stick by their people. On the other hand, you are right that it means the new guys won't touch Russia (they may not anyway). Of course, Assad having nowhere to go is bad news for Syria. If he goes down fighting this hot only gets bloodier, but I suspect it makes the aftermath nastier too.

If he can't find sanctuary, the fight goes on. He'll have to bank on winning to survive. Now is the best time for him to deal with the opposition for a clean exit. As the scales tip farther against him, the less the opposition will be inclined to let him go.

[zraver]

If he can't find sanctuary, the fight goes on. He'll have to bank on winning to survive. Now is the best time for him to deal with the opposition for a clean exit. As the scales tip farther against him, the less the opposition will be inclined to let him go.

I am not sure that is an option after Homs.

[JAD_333]

I am not sure that is an option after Homs.

Who can be sure? But it will not look good for the opposition to come to power later rather than sooner only because it wanted Assad's hide. The killing stops when he goes. More innocent deaths to avenge Assad rather than let him go is not worth it.