Middle East and North Africa 19

[Horza]

Re: the recent turn in the Syrian regime's fortunes, I think this is pretty close to the mark:

Judging by a lot of the media coverage of the Syrian war, President Bashar al-Assad runs a curious sort of regime: it is always either crumbling or on the verge of victory.

The narrative shifts every now and then. Assad was losing from March 2011 until around October 2013, then he was winning for about a year and a half, and now he is back to losing again. The story is consistent only in that it remains reliably hung up on the extremes of victory or defeat.

Only rarely will the Assad regime be described as what it most probably is: a decomposing rump state plodding through a confused civil war toward an uncertain future, with no one quite sure anymore what victory would even look like. The Syrian government may lose more territory and break down structurally, perhaps even rapidly and catastrophically, but its constituent parts are not about to vanish from the face of the earth. In the hypothetical event of Assad’s death or withdrawal from Damascus, his armed forces would not cease to exist. Some would flee and some would die, but what remained would melt into a new ecology of militias and mayhem—and the war would go on.

[jurble]

Ramadi falls

I wish I knew whether the state department is trying to cajole the Arab nations into sending a ground force to dismantle ISIS. At this point, I don't see the Iraqi military being able to effectively retake its territory without Iranian regular troops. If Iranian regulars enter at Iraq's request, the risk of Saudi intervention to seize the shatt al arab increases, and there's a good chance of regional war. Getting ahead of it with a general Arab coalition force would be ideal, imo.

American troops would never be a real solution, since it would fuel ISIS' foreign fighter recruitment drive, and it would just re-emerge when we leave.

[Guest]

Graeme Wood, the author of that Atlantic piece on the Islamic State, does a very long interview here with Sam Harris that I found fascinating.

[Horza]

Ramadi falls

I wish I knew whether the state department is trying to cajole the Arab nations into sending a ground force to dismantle ISIS. At this point, I don't see the Iraqi military being able to effectively retake its territory without Iranian regular troops. If Iranian regulars enter at Iraq's request, the risk of Saudi intervention to seize the shatt al arab increases, and there's a good chance of regional war. Getting ahead of it with a general Arab coalition force would be ideal, imo.

American troops would never be a real solution, since it would fuel ISIS' foreign fighter recruitment drive, and it would just re-emerge when we leave.

The problem the Iraqi army has with Ramadi and Anbar Province is the local population hates them. In the very unlikely event that Iran were to send the Artesh to fight there that problem would become orders of magnitude worse.

Also, notwithstanding that Iraq would never allow what would be in effect a (likely Saudi-led) pan-Sunni army on its territory; in general the armies of the Gulf and wider Arab world aren't trained, equipped or even institutionally capable of the sort of operations required to take and secure territory from an experienced hybrid force like IS. And from a counterinsurgency standpoint, the cultural differences between Anbar locals and say, Egyptian regulars would be signficant and not a barrier to the kinds of escalating frictions and hostility that come from foreign occupation.

[Darzin]

So with the fall of Idlib to the rebels and the fall of Palmyra to Daesh, things are not looking good for the SAA. Especially with the loss of the oilfields in Palmyra I don't think they maintain the operational capability to reverse these losses. They are running out of manpower too, to the point that Iran is recruiting Afghan refugees and criminals to fight in exchange for amnesty and residence. Every day the SAA gets weaker as they can't replace the men and weapons they lose it's only a matter of time until their such a spent force the rebels turn on each other.

[Mr Fixit]

What is it with these Arab armies that they all seem utterly incapable of conducting efficient military operations even with superiority in manpower and equipment?

[Darzin]

What is it with these Arab armies that they all seem utterly incapable of conducting efficient military operations even with superiority in manpower and equipment?

Here is a great Hitler parody with Qasem Soleimani complaining about the Syrian armies incompetence.

[Hayyoth]

What is it with these Arab armies that they all seem utterly incapable of conducting efficient military operations even with superiority in manpower and equipment?

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

Tribalism, but mainly a terrible officer class. The Syrian and Iraqi armies will perform well when ISIS starts attacking Shia areas, something they've not done seriously up to now.

[Arakan]

I have to repeat what I have been saying since 2011: the absurdity called Syrian Civil War is the new BENCHMARK for idiotic western foreign policies, surpassing even the idiocy called Lybian Civil War (funny that our great Western leaders rather tend to ignore that country nowadays unless talking about refugee boats).

Of course for a long time it was very convenient to blame Russia for evth bad happening in Syria but even the biggest Russia hater nowadays has to acknowledge that the Russian diplomatic approach would have been the most reasonable and the only way to get rid of Assad and working towards a peaceful longterm solution. Lybia is the living proof of that. Interestingly the Western Leaders seem to agree as can be seen in Egypt.

[Arakan]

By the way: i have lost all hope that Syria and Iraq as a whole will ever again become functioning states, at least within the next few decades. Maybe in 50 years it will look different but I doubt it.

[Darzin]

What did the west have to do with Egypt? Or Syria for that matter in case you noticed the US did not intervene in Syria to overthrow Assad it's the exact opposite of Libya.

By the way: i have lost all hope that Syria and Iraq as a whole will ever again become functioning states, at least within the next few decades. Maybe in 50 years it will look different but I doubt it.

I doubt Syria and Iraq will be states in 50 years at least not with their current boundaries. Kurdistan for sure is going to go sooner or later, and while the Syrian rebels have done a good job taking areas sympathetic to them I doubt they'll ever be able to take the Alawite heartland so sooner or later defacto boundaries will probably form along those lines.

.

[Hayyoth]

What did the west have to do with Egypt? Or Syria for that matter in case you noticed the US did not intervene in Syria to overthrow Assad it's the exact opposite of Libya.

I doubt Syria and Iraq will be states in 50 years at least not with their current boundaries. Kurdistan for sure is going to go sooner or later, and while the Syrian rebels have done a good job taking areas sympathetic to them I doubt they'll ever be able to take the Alawite heartland so sooner or later defacto boundaries will probably for along those lines.

How I see it too, with the proviso that surrounding countries, particularly Turkey and Iran, might eventually decide to try a territorial grab. I doubt when this thing eventually settles down a few decades from now any of the nations in the Arab middle east will exist in their current form, and I include Saudi Arabia.

[Arakan]

What did the west have to do with Egypt? Or Syria for that matter in case you noticed the US did not intervene in Syria to overthrow Assad it's the exact opposite of Libya.

.

Are you serious?

As far as I remember the West tried to oust Assad, quite a lot of UK and US politicians wanted to arm the Syrian "rebels". Turkey massively supported fundamentalist groups in Syria against Assad...

The only rational way in Syria would have been the Russian approach: DIALOGUE with Assad. Give him fallback options, change Syria step by step but no...the West was still drunk from their super success in Libya...wow wow wow.

[Shryke]

I have to repeat what I have been saying since 2011: the absurdity called Syrian Civil War is the new BENCHMARK for idiotic western foreign policies, surpassing even the idiocy called Lybian Civil War (funny that our great Western leaders rather tend to ignore that country nowadays unless talking about refugee boats).

Of course for a long time it was very convenient to blame Russia for evth bad happening in Syria but even the biggest Russia hater nowadays has to acknowledge that the Russian diplomatic approach would have been the most reasonable and the only way to get rid of Assad and working towards a peaceful longterm solution. Lybia is the living proof of that. Interestingly the Western Leaders seem to agree as can be seen in Egypt.

The only benchmark established here is the breadth of your ability to distort everything you see to fit your desired pre-existing narrative.

[Mr Fixit]

Sure, because the US and its closest Middle Eastern allies -- Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- had absolutely nothing to do with financing and arming what became ISIS.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/06/behind-bidens-gaffe-some-legitimate-concerns-about-americas-middle-east-allies/

http://news.firedoglake.com/2014/08/11/obama-admits-arming-moderate-syrian-rebels-has-always-been-a-fantasy/

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092

As for Darzin's question about Egypt, you are aware that there was a military coup in 2013 supported by the West, in the aftermath of which several thousand people were brutally murdered on the streets of Cairo and other cities?

[ElizabethB.]

"The West" is an evil thing. It comes from the imagination.

[Mr Fixit]

"The West" is an evil thing. It comes from the imagination.

Thankfully, some of us are blessed with vivid imaginations!

[ElizabethB.]

Finally you admit that the narrative of "the Evil West" comes from the imagination.

[Darzin]

As for Darzin's question about Egypt, you are aware that there was a military coup in 2013 supported by the West, in the aftermath of which several thousand people were brutally murdered on the streets of Cairo and other cities?

I am. But that's not making any sense supporting the coup is the opposite of supporting Assad. In Syria you complaining the west wanted to get rid of the dictator in Egypt they let the deep state take power again. Also the US did not overthrow the Syrian government in case you didn't notice. Obama talked about it but he got shot down, and rightly so. So what you're complaining about is something the US might have done but didn't. Yes we armed some rebels w, but that's a far cry from what happened in Libya and those rebels ended up getting slaughtered by Jabat al Nursra.

Sure, because the US and its closest Middle Eastern allies -- Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- had absolutely nothing to do with financing and arming what became ISIS.

You realize that the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are not coordinating their efforts, but are funding different groups in a bid for influence, yes the US funded some rebels but most of the ones we were funding were killed byJabat al Nursra who has been funded by Qatar. I don't know why you insist on denying agency to everyone but the US in this war. Other people have agendas as well its not like the US, The Gulf and Turkey are some big happy club when it comes to Syria.

[ants]

Again I ask why should Turkey give it's land?

........

Well, there could be a number of reasons why:

• It could be seen as a way of increasing the security of all the remaining parts of Turkey.
• It could be seen as a way of creating a buffer state between you and Iran/Syria/Iraq, creating a more stable neighbour.
• It could win you international brownie points
• IF this area works like Northern Ireland for the UK, then you might actually be spending far more tax dollars on it than you get out. So it might actually help the budget not to have it.
• Similarly, is the productivity in this region anywhere near as high as the west of the country?
• Doing it yourself would give you far more control on what the agreed borders would be. Similarly you might be able to negotiate deals on oil/gas with the new state as a condition of recognition. My understanding is the oil/gas isn't in the Turkish area, so this could be a big win.
• It is probably the morally correct thing to do.
• One of the key issues with gaining entry to the EU is your population size - this would reduce the population.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons not to as well. But its not like there are no potential benefits of doing it. I do not know what the resources in that region are, and what the cost/benefits to taxes/productivity/security are. As much as I sympathise for the Kurds, clearly the international position is that where someone has been ruled long enough, that is the status quo (look at the Basque region, Northern Ireland, Tamils, etc. etc.).