Where to start with Syria? Some thoughts on a few points in Jeff Weintraub's post,
The UN now puts the death toll in Syria at 60,000 ...
the so-called "Arab Spring" ... The current struggle for Syria began in January 2011...
My
recollection is that as the "Arab Spring" (a strange description for
something that began in December (2010); I tend to prefer John Kerry's
"Arab awakening") spread from Tunisia to Egypt and then Libya, few
reports were emerging from Syria until March 2011. Protests were met
with brutal repression, including the deployment of tanks in Deraa in
the south. At what point this could be descibed as "civil war", as
people started to form themselves into armed resistance, I don't know. (*)
there do seem to be plausible grounds for believing that in November
2012 the Syrian regime really was on the verge of escalating to the use
of poison gas,
but was deterred by outside warnings that this would mean crossing a
red line. Saddam Hussein didn't face that kind of inconvenience in the
1980s
Well,
the recently deceased Norman Schwarzkopf did give Saddam Hussein
some fairly clear warnings during the 1990-1 conflict. Throughout the
whole episode regarding Iraq's WMDs, Syria's possession
of chemical weapons was tolerated on the understanding that they
were as a deterrence against Israel, who of course had nuclear
weapons. There is an interesting parallel, that I mentioned
here ("
Likewise, the Iraqis used chemical weapons initially as a last resort
device to forestall Iranian breakthroughs, a fact which may have made it
harder for NATO nations to issue an uncompromising condemnation given their
own dependence on escalation to nuclear strikes in such a circumstance.")
Of
course, there was no excuse for the use of chemical weapons against the
Kurds, or even against Iran in the final stages of the war, but then
Iraq was "on our side" at the time (even on Israel's, on the "lesser of
two evils" principle).
a prolonged and increasingly bloody stalemate is a plausible alternative ...
Some
commenators have suggested that 2013 could see Assad removed from
power. I don't know how long it's going to take, but the rebels do seem
to be making progress, albeit slow. For example, on 11 Jan 2013
opposition forces captured the Taftanaz airbase in Idlib province, the
fight led by the Nasra Front and another islamist group, Ahrar al
Sham (report on al Jazeera). Following attacks from
regime jets, they were forced to withdraw, but according to Abou
Hamed, operations commander for the Nasra Front (Jabhat al Nusra), the
weapons they captured would be a "game changer" (Sue Turton reporting
for al Jazeera, 14 Jan).
On
28 Jan, rebels were reported to be battling for a prison in Idlib
province, Ahrar al Sham joining forces with 2 other brigades. On 29
Jan, it was reported that government forces had abandoned the prison.
It was seen as an important objective, not only to free the prisoners,
many of them political, but also because it was the last government
checkpoint before Idlib city itself (Sue Turton again).
It
seems to be a pattern that is being repeated throughout Syria: the
rebels make progress on the ground, but the areas that they capture
then come under sustained bombardment. So, a very bloody and prolonged
struggle, but that is not the same as a stalemate.
One
possibility, that was mentioned some time ago, is that even if Aleppo
and Damascus fell completely into the hands of the opposition, Assad
would retreat to the Alawite stronghold on the coast: without air
support to the rebels, as in Libya, there would be no rapid resolution
of this.
And even if, or when, the Assad regime is decisively overthrown by the
rebels—who are by no means unified themselves—that wouldn't necessarily
guarantee an end to the killing and destruction.
James
Kitfield of the National Journal (C-Span, 6 Jan.), among other
questionable remarks, said that there could be chaos as in Libya. To my
mind, an outcome like that in Syria would be on the optimistic end of
the scale. But that and what the US and its allies could do to bring
about a relatively better outcome I will write about later.
*
According to 'Syria: Inside the Secret Revolution' (on the BBC's Panorama
programme, 26 Sep 2011 ) the Syrian uprising began in Daraa
(Deraa) when some schoolchildren were arrested after writing
anti-regime graffiti. They were held for 2 weeks and tortured - videos
of bloodied faces. On 18 Mar 2011, there was a protest
march in the city. 4 people were killed.
It
was regime propaganda to claim that their forces were deployed against
"armed terrorists". Soldiers saw this on state TV, but when they were
actually about to go into action, they were told not to shoot the armed
men since they were in fact Shabiha - pro-regime militia. There was an
interview, clearly carried out shortly before the broadcast, with Riad
al Assaad, who also released a video. He said that he and other Sunni
officers were forming a rebel army, the Free Syrian Army ...
Just
like in Stalin's army, men from the 4th division, which was commanded
by a relative of Bashar al-Assad, were posted behind the soldiers
engaged in action, to shoot any who might baulk at firing on civilians.
** March 6th has been mentioned as the anniversary of the 15 schoolchildren's graffiti protest
(
'Empire' on Al Jazeera, 28 Jan 2013
- right at the end the presenter expresses the wish that this date
might be "the catalyst ... for an international solidarity movement").