Middle East and North Africa 20 - The End of the Beginning in Syria? SPECIAL BONUS RUSSIAN JET CRISIS EDITION

[The Fallen]

I don't think anyone is denying Turkey's involvement in this mess.

[Wouter]

In response to your question; probably not, why should they? ISIS pose a small risk to them, their friends and families, but no bigger a risk than car accidents or random crime, and they are a chance to increase their own political power and make money for themselves and their backers, and make themselves feel more important than they already do on the world stage.

So I honestly believe that at this point most Western leaders value other things higher than minorities getting butchered in the Middle East or a few dozen of their citizens getting murder by terrorists.

If this is the mentality prevailing among some groups of western politicians, they should not be surprised if many French, Belgians, Germans etc decide to side with the Russians. IS is very much felt as a threat here, and not only IS  itself but the entire Wahabist export wave from Saudi-Arabia and co. From my perspective, Turkey is no ally anymore. i have little doubt anymore that Erdogan is just as much islamist as his Hamas brothers and that he is co-creator or at least co-supporter of IS, which are deemed useful as enemies of Iran, Assad and the Kurds.

So, it's no wonder that Hollande now seems to grow closer to Putin; if enough western politicians continue to think like you say they do, I would expect the end result could be an alliance between France and some other west-european countries on the one hand, and Russia on the other hand.

It was clear right from the start that the border crossing (the plane seems to have been in Turkey airspace for less than 10 seconds, judging by  estimated traveling speed and the width of the Turkish salient) was but the excuse; the reason for the shootdown is the proxy war between Assad (Russia/Iran) and his various non-IS Islamist enemies (Turkey, Qatar, Saudis). The Russian jet was bombing Turkish clients, possibly even with Turkish forces among them in a cover role (and Putin would know about that kind of thing - see the Crimea and East-Ukraine). 

I'm certain Russian planes are bombing civilians, too, in Syria, but then those Turkish aid convoys (apparently co-un by the same NGO that had a run-in with the Israeli navy on an attempted supply mission to Hamas/Gaza) are probably carrying arms and ammunition more often than not. 

It's a dirty war, but at least the Russians are fighting Daesh part of the time. The Turks - have no serious intention of harming Daesh, far too useful for Erdogan and ideologically probably not that far from his own thinking. He just hides it better.

 

 

[Shryke]

If this is the mentality prevailing among some groups of western politicians, they should not be surprised if many French, Belgians, Germans etc decide to side with the Russians. IS is very much felt as a threat here, and not only IS  itself but the entire Wahabist export wave from Saudi-Arabia and co. From my perspective, Turkey is no ally anymore. i have little doubt anymore that Erdogan is just as much islamist as his Hamas brothers and that he is co-creator or at least co-supporter of IS, which are deemed useful as enemies of Iran, Assad and the Kurds.

So, it's no wonder that Hollande now seems to grow closer to Putin; if enough western politicians continue to think like you say they do, I would expect the end result could be an alliance between France and some other west-european countries on the one hand, and Russia on the other hand.

It was clear right from the start that the border crossing (the plane seems to have been in Turkey airspace for less than 10 seconds, judging by  estimated traveling speed and the width of the Turkish salient) was but the excuse; the reason for the shootdown is the proxy war between Assad (Russia/Iran) and his various non-IS Islamist enemies (Turkey, Qatar, Saudis). The Russian jet was bombing Turkish clients, possibly even with Turkish forces among them in a cover role (and Putin would know about that kind of thing - see the Crimea and East-Ukraine). 

I'm certain Russian planes are bombing civilians, too, in Syria, but then those Turkish aid convoys (apparently co-un by the same NGO that had a run-in with the Israeli navy on an attempted supply mission to Hamas/Gaza) are probably carrying arms and ammunition more often than not. 

It's a dirty war, but at least the Russians are fighting Daesh part of the time. The Turks - have no serious intention of harming Daesh, far too useful for Erdogan and ideologically probably not that far from his own thinking. He just hides it better.

Nah. It's basically for sure that Turkey is supporting a bunch of anti-Assad and anti-Kurd factions in this mess and has some connections to ISIS but they didn't co-create it in any way shape or form nor are they a principle backer.

Erdogan isn't Islamist like ISIS is. He's more of an islamic nationalist dictator. Most of Turkey's involvement imo can be chalked up to national goals rather then any sort of religion-based ideology. Mostly anti-Assad and anti-Kurd for example. Also anti-anyone-who-criticizes-his-government-in-any-way.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Nah. It's basically for sure that Turkey is supporting a bunch of anti-Assad and anti-Kurd factions in this mess and has some connections to ISIS but they didn't co-create it in any way shape or form nor are they a principle backer.

Erdogan isn't Islamist like ISIS is. He's more of an islamic nationalist dictator. Most of Turkey's involvement imo can be chalked up to national goals rather then any sort of religion-based ideology. Mostly anti-Assad and anti-Kurd for example. Also anti-anyone-who-criticizes-his-government-in-any-way.

This.

Erdogan commited himself very early, when Obama said, the goal was to get rid of Assad (which was realistically never going to happen without deploying US troops, which Obama more or less categorically ruled out.)

Turkey wants become a stronger local power. After Erdogan joined Obama in this "We will remove Assad". 

The surprising/depressing point is, that Putin has thus far displayed the most reasonable approach Syria. 

He said early on, that Assad is an ally, and it's not in Russia's interest to remove him. The moderate Syrians, whom the US would so much love to help down there have fled the country in huge numbers. And it's not like they had a whole lot of support to begin with.

So the west likes to support the Kurds and has delivered some weapons to them. While the western ally Erdogan (Turkey) is waging his little anti-terror war against the Kurds. Oh and Turkey is still the gateway to Syria for Islamists wanting to join ISIS/ISEL. Not for me to say, whether it's negligence, turning a blind a eye to this or simply not being able to monitor the borders on Erdogan's part. But him delivering weapons to the Islamists makes sense on the short run. Afterall they fight against the Kurds and Assad, and he is probably quite happy, as long as they don't turn their attention to his country. Very consistent policy on the part of the West.

As for that goal to remove Assad from power, I somewhat get the feeling the US (and this time the EU too) are repeating the mistake from the Iraq disaster. 

"Remove Assad, or remove Hussein." as an aim is a bit weak.

The point is: "Remove Assad and replace him with what exactly?". The US goverment under Bush had no good answer to that question in Iraq, and we can all admire how that worked out. So some lofty: "With a freedom and democracy" will not do.

As long as the west does not provide a good answer to that question, I believe Vladimir Vladimirovich has the right of it. Better keep Assad before this whole thing gets even worse.

[Shryke]

The problem is Assad has already amply demonstrated his inability to hold this shit together. And that's the linchpin of the whole "Leave the strongman in place" position.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Well, that's partly true. 

Assad still controls Damascus and a big chunk of the country arround the capital. And remember the "rebels" used to get some support in the aftermath of the Arab spring from the west, if my memory does not mislead me. And didn't the west also use airstrikes against Assad's troops early on? So the West helped a bit getting him in such a tight spot. Only after it became more obvious that Islamist took over that uprising against Assad did the west change their stance, while they are of course still committed to remove Assad. And again, the problem that nobody is there to step in for Assad does not go away.

Of course the Russians are now deploying ground troops to help Assad regain territory and control and giving the "strongman" some of his lost strength back.

Anyway, the Russians have the right of it, the West should really get their priorities in order. Either remove Assad or fight ISIS, they can't have it both ways. Unless some moderate Syrian leader comes in leading the charge on a star spangled Unicorn. Which is not very likely to happen.

[Shryke]

Well, that's partly true. 

Assad still controls Damascus and a big chunk of the country arround the capital. And remember the "rebels" used to get some support in the aftermath of the Arab spring from the west, if my memory does not mislead me. And didn't the west also use airstrikes against Assad's troops early on? So the West helped a bit getting him in such a tight spot. Only after it became more obvious that Islamist took over that uprising against Assad did the west change their stance, while they are of course still committed to remove Assad. And again, the problem that nobody is there to step in for Assad does not go away.

Of course the Russians are now deploying ground troops to help Assad regain territory and control and giving the "strongman" some of his lost strength back.

Anyway, the Russians have the right of it, the West should really get their priorities in order. Either remove Assad or fight ISIS, they can't have it both ways. Unless some moderate Syrian leader comes in leading the charge on a star spangled Unicorn. Which is not very likely to happen.

No, Assad was failing to win this civil war long before the West got involved. And that's still the problem your post here can't get around. At the end of the day Assad needs to be propped up. It's not just a matter of no longer trying to get rid of him.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Well, let's agree to disagree on that point.
The problems on the western side still remain even without Assad.

That is, that the western (+Turkey) policy is a total inconsistent mess. Support the Kurds (with weapons and air strikes and supplies), fight the Kurds. Fight ISIS deliver weapons to them. 

And not to mention the Western allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar or Bahrain. Who like Turkey are also trying to spin the situation in their best interest.

The most vital at the moment for the west is actually Turkey. They can go down harder on the ISIS and increase the security at their borders. It would at least reduce the influx of fighters and supplies for ISIS and it could also decrease the funds ISIS gets through bootlegging oil (and Turkey is the main smuggle route). Erdogan does not seem to be in the mood to do either. No idea, whether he is scared of ISIS hitting back at Turkey or if he wants to keep that conflict going for a good while longer. 

[Bonesy]

Based on recent history and current behavior, the Kurds seem to be the only laudable faction in this morass.

And they were key players in the Armenian attempted genocide.

[Horza]

Assad still controls Damascus and a big chunk of the country arround the capital. And remember the "rebels" used to get some support in the aftermath of the Arab spring from the west, if my memory does not mislead me. And didn't the west also use airstrikes against Assad's troops early on? So the West helped a bit getting him in such a tight spot. Only after it became more obvious that Islamist took over that uprising against Assad did the west change their stance, while they are of course still committed to remove Assad. And again, the problem that nobody is there to step in for Assad does not go away.

There have been no Western airstrikes on Syrian government forces or installations (the Israelis have hit Syrian government forces in connection with Hezbollah). When presented with a pretext for an airstrike campaign following the 2013 Ghouta sarin attacks the Obama administration declined to go ahread. It is still murky as to when arms shipments to the opposition began, but the CIA-vetted program didn't get fully underway before late 2012. Prior to that it is likely that Turkish and Gulf armed support was arriving by late 2011 as the peaceful protests were finally abandoned. One of the goals of the US-vetted shipments program has actually been to restrict the availability of weaponry to the Syrian armed opposition, particularly as concerns anti-aircraft weaponry. The US has expended significant political capital in getting its regional partners to agree not to ship this kind of equipment as well as trying to control the groups who do get anti-armor weapons, with some success.

More broadly: the armed opposition's successes in 2011-2012 came despite shortages of arms and heavy weaponry, and in the face of Syrian government air superiority. The main factor in this seems to have been the poor state of the regular Syrian army, and the shortage of reliable second-line troops for basic tasks like securing rear areas. When, with Iranian assistance a new militia was created to fill this gap the Syrian government was able to stabilise its position. The main change in the thinking of the Obama administration has been the end of the belief that the Assad government would lose control, something that still seemed likely in 2012.

 

 

Anyway, the Russians have the right of it, the West should really get their priorities in order. Either remove Assad or fight ISIS, they can't have it both ways. Unless some moderate Syrian leader comes in leading the charge on a star spangled Unicorn. Which is not very likely to happen.

This argument gets made a lot, but it is based on an unwillingness to face the fact that the Syrian uprising became a violent, sectarian conflict at the direct instigation of the Assad regime, which took conscious steps to destroy the secular and democratic opposition and worked to strengthen the sectarian and jihadist movements as part of its survival strategy. The flower of Syrian civil society is in jail, exile or the ground yet swathes of hardcore jihadis were released from Syrian jails in May and June 2011. This isn't an isolated decision either - it flows from a Syrian government policy of opportunistic alliances with jihadis, which saw Syria become the main foreign fighter transit hub during the Iraqi civil war (as Turkey is to the Syrian conflict) and even host some of the meetings that began the then-Islamic State of Iraq's alliance with former Baathists. This is the government that's supposed to bring an end to this conflict and work to destroy the Islamic State.

It remains my belief that ending the threat of the Islamic State means ending the Syrian civil war, which if its to happen any time soon means an end on terms that will disappoint the Syrian government and the armed opposition. For as long as there's fighting there won't be the concerted push to destroy the Islamic State on all fronts, or an end to the grievances that fuelled its resurrection in 2011. Similarly, the opposition made a catastrophic decision when it accepted Jabhat al-Nusra as a partner, a mistake that they need to accept and bring to an end, but this is politically impossible for as long as the Syrian government retains the current leadership. There's a lot of scoffing at this idea, but it's a basic fact that the global ambitions of Al-Qaeda clash with the local motivations of the armed opposition, and ignoring that is passing up an opportunity to end a bloody conflict and start destroying an organisation that is Al-Qaeda's greatest success in years.

[Shryke]

Well, let's agree to disagree on that point.
The problems on the western side still remain even without Assad.

That is, that the western (+Turkey) policy is a total inconsistent mess. Support the Kurds (with weapons and air strikes and supplies), fight the Kurds. Fight ISIS deliver weapons to them. 

And not to mention the Western allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar or Bahrain. Who like Turkey are also trying to spin the situation in their best interest.

The most vital at the moment for the west is actually Turkey. They can go down harder on the ISIS and increase the security at their borders. It would at least reduce the influx of fighters and supplies for ISIS and it could also decrease the funds ISIS gets through bootlegging oil (and Turkey is the main smuggle route). Erdogan does not seem to be in the mood to do either. No idea, whether he is scared of ISIS hitting back at Turkey or if he wants to keep that conflict going for a good while longer. 

Except none of this is actually an accurate description of how things are going. Your problem here seems to be your are viewing "The West and it's Allies" as some sort of homogeneous entity. They are not. They are a multitude of different nations and groups each pursuing their own agenda.

For example, the US, in the vaguest of terms, is supporting the Kurds (but not too much so as not to piss off the Turks too much) and trying to fight ISIS and arm the rebels. They are not delivering weapons to ISIS or fighting the Kurds. The Turks on the other hand, are totally fighting the Kurds and at least letting ISIS act with some degree of impunity and letting their recruits cross their territory. That Turkey and the US are both part of NATO and allies doesn't mean they both agree on everything or that the US can tell Turkey what to do. Same with all the other countries you mention.

The West as it is normally thought of is pretty consistent in what it wants here. Their local allies and such on the other hand have different ideas.  As does Russia. If you want to say "the global policy on this situation is a total inconsistent mess" then that would be both true and basically irrelevant since it's always true. All nations involved in a conflict rarely agree on everything that needs to be done. I mean, that's why there's a conflict in the first place after all.

 

As for the rest, there are problems beyond Assad here but that's irrelevant to my point, which is that Assad is not really an answer to those issues are you were claiming. Beyond being a generally awful person as ruler of Syria he's also shown himself incapable of controlling this situation. It's not a question of "Remove Assad or not" it's a question of "Prop up Assad or not" cause the truth here is that this conflict didn't need western intervention to start or turn into the clusterfuck it has. Deciding not to remove Assad won't fix the situation because just not trying to get rid of him won't stop the conflict.

[jarl the climber]

Well, let's agree to disagree on that point.
The problems on the western side still remain even without Assad.

That is, that the western (+Turkey) policy is a total inconsistent mess. Support the Kurds (with weapons and air strikes and supplies), fight the Kurds. Fight ISIS deliver weapons to them. 

And not to mention the Western allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar or Bahrain. Who like Turkey are also trying to spin the situation in their best interest.

The most vital at the moment for the west is actually Turkey. They can go down harder on the ISIS and increase the security at their borders. It would at least reduce the influx of fighters and supplies for ISIS and it could also decrease the funds ISIS gets through bootlegging oil (and Turkey is the main smuggle route). Erdogan does not seem to be in the mood to do either. No idea, whether he is scared of ISIS hitting back at Turkey or if he wants to keep that conflict going for a good while longer. 

Its hard to get a feel for how Erdogan is trying to accomplish want he wants here. My best guess is that he wants Assad out and Syria to become a Turkish client state with an Islamic type government similar to his own. I don't think he will really see ISIS as a problem until Assad has fallen. One thing that seems to be telling is that the Syrian Sunnis Islamists have mostly acted against his enemies as far as I can tell. The problem he has is almost nobody else wants this outcome and it has isolated him diplomaticly. Him and Obama seem to get along passably well but the career American diplomats have more or less grown to despise him and this is almost universal with a few exceptions like Qatar. 

[Shryke]

Its hard to get a feel for how Erdogan is trying to accomplish want he wants here. My best guess is that he wants Assad out and Syria to become a Turkish client state with an Islamic type government similar to his own. I don't think he will really see ISIS as a problem until Assad has fallen. One thing that seems to be telling is that the Syrian Sunnis Islamists have mostly acted against his enemies as far as I can tell. The problem he has is almost nobody else wants this outcome and it has isolated him diplomaticly. Him and Obama seem to get along passably well but the career American diplomats have more or less grown to despise him and this is almost universal with a few exceptions like Qatar. 

This is literally the problem with every single local power sticking their fingers in this mess and every other mess in the ME and Northern Africa. Assad, Turkey, the Saudis, everyone sees the other guys as more of an issue then groups like ISIS or AQ.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Which is why a political settlement or local coalition somehow defeating ISIS is a pipe dream.

[Prosesskrift]

I see various posters repeat the claim that Russians do these things all the time. This is a candid question, I'm not trying to be cynical: when? Beside problems with Turkey, I'm only aware of a single Russian incursion into Swedish airspace last year. All other "problematic" incidents that I know of occurred over international waters, usually in the Baltic, North Sea, Pacific, etc.

I found several articles from christmas last year quoting the Norwegian airforce on this issue. It was stated that NATO had responded to more than a hundred russian incursions into NATO airspace in the last year. Mainly over Sweden and the Baltics. In Norwegian, but here you go http://www.tv2.no/a/6261030.

[Horza]

Which is why a political settlement or local coalition somehow defeating ISIS is a pipe dream.

I don't see why. Political settlement would by definition involve an agreement on the part of the regional actors to shift their shitfight out of the battlefield. None of these countries likes torching all this cash on Syrians, they do it because they're trying to keep their rivals from getting an edge. That competition isn't going to stop, but that doesn't mean it has to take the current form. If that's acheivable there's nothing else keeping ISIS halfway viable.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Erdogan wants to rebuild the Ottoman Empire.

So a Sunni client state in Syria would suit him very well. That and ISIS wiping out as many of the Kurds as possible. He doesn't really fear ISIS, because he has the strongest military in the region, and he is a member of Nato, which he uses as a shield to support his nefarious local ambitions.

If any of his plots turn into disaster, he thinks he can just rely on Nato to protect him in a worst case scenario.

 

[Biglose]

This is literally the problem with every single local power sticking their fingers in this mess and every other mess in the ME and Northern Africa. Assad, Turkey, the Saudis, everyone sees the other guys as more of an issue then groups like ISIS or AQ.

Because they are. Any conflict between Saudi Arabia and ISIS is purly in terms of who should run the show in the end. There is enough space to go around on this planet. The same thing with Erdogan. If you listen to what the turkey sponsered mosques in germany tend to preach and put on their websites... (Jews are all liaers bad people and so on is really just the lower point of it)

[Shryke]

Because they are. Any conflict between Saudi Arabia and ISIS is purly in terms of who should run the show in the end. There is enough space to go around on this planet. The same thing with Erdogan. If you listen to what the turkey sponsered mosques in germany tend to preach and put on their websites... (Jews are all liaers bad people and so on is really just the lower point of it)

What the hell even is this? You are making no sense.

[Biglose]

ISIS, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are standing more or less on the same side.