They can only hope to precipitate a coup within the state, but not for outright victory over the army. It could work, I suppose, but it seems risky, to say the least.

They either think that, if Assad goes, the new regime would be more to their liking, or that they'd have a better chance against a divided government.

It pulls troops away from Damascus, so it's sort of a rear-guard action. Pulls troops away from other places, to. Easy to set fires. Harder to rebuild. When Aleppo's settled, that is, even if Assad wins, expect another city to be the target.

It helps to undermine confidence and sow terror and chaos. Instability matters a lot--it helps defenders ("See, he can't keep control, he's dickless&quot as well as challengers ("See, we can seriously screw with this, we have big dicks.&quot

If nothing else, it helps drain Assad's military stockpiles, using weapons that don't have to be smuggled all the way to Damascus.

And there's always the hope that it'll trigger a righteous Sunni uprising against their oppressors. If they could kill 10s of thousands of Xians in pogroms in the mid 1800s, why not throw off the evil apostate prophet-hating Alawites now? We forget sectarianism, but it's really salient to those "in the mix" when the Sunni FSA's target isn't just a minister but the Xian minister of defence, or the high-ranking-so-and-so is a Sunni from a tribe on the Iraq border and the next day there's a story about how that tribe's leaders are helping to smuggle arms in for the FSA from Iraq.

Some is also bravado. The FSA can't help but have noticed that the narrative changed in the last week or so. No longer is it some coordinating group of political movements. Now the FSA is in the driver's seat and the diverse politicians can sit in the back. Maybe the trunk. Or be dragged from the rear bumper. Whatever.

And there's the headlines. You read them and you think Assad is evil for all the fighting, and it's just harmless rebels defending persecuted civilians. The rebels are just doing what we expect, and aren't responsible for the violence; the real perpetrators are those who seek to restore the dreadful non-violent non-combat situation that preceded the necessarily violent peace-achieving efforts. We get most of our news through rehashed Youtube videos posted by the rebels with rebel commentary. What's not unbiased about that?

If they can rely on mass support, they should be fine. But if not, they will have problems. They could certainly mange to get themselves encircles and wiped out if they aren't tactically smart. These urban forays, if premature, could result in unacceptably high casualties. There are no supply lines, and retreating forces could be targeted.

It strikes me like Tet in some regards, which was a political victory but a military defeat for the anti-US insurgents. The nature of the Aleppo/Damascus campaign is yet to be determined.

Syria conflict: Aleppo bombed by fighter planes

Source: BBC


24 July 2012 Last updated at 14:18 GMT

Syria conflict: Aleppo bombed by fighter planes

Fighter jets have bombed eastern areas of Syria's second city Aleppo, a BBC reporter near the city says.

The attack is seen as a significant escalation in the conflict.

It is thought to be the first time that warplanes have been used in Aleppo, our correspondent says.

Rebels launched an offensive against Aleppo at the weekend in an attempt to wrest control of the city from the army. Fierce fighting has been reported close to Aleppo's historic Old City.

-snip-


Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18973719


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021011403

that he will use chemical weapons he got from saddam

charming...get this kid his own CIA bank account, STAT. Oh, he already has one? Boy is my face red..