Assad actually is better than the alternative that has presented itself.

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2013, 07:23 AM - Edit history (1)

The most likely outcome appears to be Balkanization, or perhaps more accurately, one Big Beirut.

Here's what it's likely to look like: the "moderate" western-approved FSA will essentially serve as a militia and border police for the Israelis and Jordanians, like the Druze and South Lebanon Army factions. Meanwhile, the Saudi-backed Sunnis can be expected to continue to occupy much of the northern and eastern border areas along Turkey and as a "buffer" with Iraq. The Alawite may remain in much of what's left of Damascus and area north bordering Beirut and their historical enclaves along the coast. Expect sporatic flair-ups of fighting and civil war among and within these factions, along with a shit load of terrorism, for the next few decades.

That appears to be the end-game for Free Syria that's been created.

Not a pretty picture and doesn't bode well for post-conflict Syria which has already been devastated. But I wonder if it's going to happen. Judging from Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and of course Iraq that was more or less the plan all along.

But in those cases the decapitation was successful, whereas Assad has managed to survive his own funeral, and with a functioning head of state Syria might not be as unstable as all that. In other words won't Assad keep trying to expel the jihadis and reclaim their territories, and if he's made it this far, aren't his chance of success pretty high?

but considered no better or worse than any of his regime circle. The strategic goal all along, I conclude, was to turn or neutralize Iran's major ally in the region. That much has been, to a very great degree, already accomplished, but in the process the fires of the Sunni-Shi'ia divide and Salafi terrorism are raging out of control across MENA, and the US and NATO are in no position to stop it. That would take the cooperation of KSA/GCC, but the Saudis and Emirs are the major sponsors of Sunni radicalism and the Gulf Arabs are reaping enormous prestige rewards from their financial backing of this stage of Jihad. Ultimately, that puts them in direct conflict with the U.S. and the west, as well as Iran and the Shi'ia, and to a lesser degree with Russia and China.

I see this situation of shifting alliances, covert warfare, and secret treaties is as perilous as that in Europe just before World War One.

And I agree that outside parties including NATO are playing with fire by launching destabilization schemes in pursuit of profits for resource extractors and investors. But I wonder if long-term regional conflict -- WWIII -- isn't unintended. War is a major profit center for oil companies and the countries that supply them. The US Army is the world's largest single oil consumer for example and its vendors prosper no matter what the eventual outcome.

at least according to an LAT report posted last week in LBN:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-syria-20130316,0,3989647.story

For example the State Dept declared in December that al-Nusra, a key element of the Syrian opposition, is a terrorist organization:

"For example the State Dept declared in December that al-Nusra, a key element of the Syrian opposition, is a terrorist organization: "

...is part of the reason the administration rejected pressure to provide arms to the opposition. Kerry emphasized during his confirmation that they had to ensure that they weren't making the situation worse by putting arms in the wrong hands.

Still, this is all very interesting.

I'm thinking maybe I should.

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2013, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Point-of-view is permitted here. Even yours, and mine.

I think it is good to have a wide range of articles posted here - or on DU general discussion. It is perhaps safest here because we have always put up to discuss anything related to Kerry - including things that distorted his positions - the better to defend him. That article is not like that and it is clear that it is partly conjecture as it written as such. I suspect that on most diplomatic efforts nothing is EVER 100% as it appears in public and it is only years later that we MAYBE get various accounts of what happened.

Syria is a very very difficult issue and there appear to be a huge number of very bad choices. It is less clear there are any good choices. It is also likely that the effort to improve the Middle east situation would be helped if Syria was not in chaos.

I agree with your interpretation, but would add that President Obama is known to have rejected the request of Hillary Clinton and Petraeus to arm the rebels. Kerry, throughout his nomination hearing always spoke of hoping for a diplomatic solution - most telling when given as an answer to the question of whether he would favor arming the rebels.

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2013, 11:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I appreciate the support. And I'm glad there are others here who see this vital policy adjustment favorably. Of the five recent M.E. decapitations Syria's seemed to have the least justification. After a dubious PR flurry (the lesbian blogger who proved fake for example) and a brief "social-media" fueled Arab Spring, some provocateur violence was laid at Assad's feet, which he firmly disavowed, and presto, we had a new evil dictator oppressing a cadre of well-armed rebels getting political cover from the west.

As transparent as it all was, the campaign appears to have succeeded, and even here there's a faction that approves any catastrophe as long it's seen as a blow against Assad, for example the mosque bombing yesterday that killed 42 people in Damascus. So I have to marvel at the smooth sailing Kerry's gotten so far and hope it lasts.