The Gathering Storm in Syria

[piercehawkeye45]

Hopefully this will not happen...but the pieces are being set for a greater Middle Eastern War.

...

Two days earlier, the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah defiantly confirmed his men were in Syria fighting for Assad. “We will be the ones to bring victory,” he declared. Syrian opposition leaders believe about 7,000 Hezbollah fighters are in the country.

In the meantime, the situation in Syria threatens to escalate, not just drawing in its neighbours, but also unpicking the basic structure of the Middle East from the Levant to the Gulf — a structure largely unchanged since 1916.

Michael Clarke, director- general of the Royal United Services Institute, fears the region is splitting into two camps: on one side, Hezbollah, the Alawites, the Shi’ite minority in Syria, the Shi’ite majority in Iraq backed by Iran — and on the other, Jordan, the Christian and Sunni peoples of Lebanon, the Sunni majority in Syria and the Sunni minority in Iraq backed by Saudi Arabia.

“Syria is the eye of a much wider storm about to break out across the region,” he warns. “If Syrian sectarianism creates this sort of ethnic/religious fault line across the whole region then a lot of existing national boundaries will come to mean very little.”

...

The UN said yesterday that more than 1,000 people were killed in Iraq in May, the deadliest month since the sectarian slaughter of 2006-7, stoking fears of a return to civil war.

...

Israel, watching the arc of previously stable dictatorships around most of its borders crumble, has already shown itself willing to take military action in Syria and Lebanon.

The Jewish state has made clear it will act in its own interests, even if those might not coincide with those of America or Britain.

There are many different players in this conflict, each with their own set of interests. As I said, hopefully it does not escalate from here but things do not look optimistic.

As for U.S. involvement, it seems to be damned if we do...damned if we don't.

“We can identify who these people are,” said McCain. “We can help the right people.”

That could be easier said than done. Reports from Lebanon indicated that two of the men posing beside him might have been leaders of a brigade responsible for kidnapping 11 Shi’ite pilgrims.

...

No military plan, however, looks attractive. “The problem with arming the rebels is we only like 25% of them and even if you give them stuff there’s no guarantee it won’t be passed on to Islamists,” said one western diplomat in Washington.

....

As the conflict escalates and spreads, Vali Nasr, a former State Department official under Obama, points out the costs of inaction could be colossal.

“If al-Qaeda takes control of parts of Syria, how are we going to deal with that? If you don’t invest in training a militia that you have control of, that you can ultimately unleash against al-Qaeda, then you have to deal with it on your own.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._118699-3.html

[ZenGum]

I've been thinking about this for some time. There is an idea that there is (often but not always) a "natural political map" of any given area, with national boundaries following cultural groups. Each group, having it's own language, bases its ideas on its own literature, and develops its own cultural values; and consequently various groups with differing values are best administered separately.

The situation in Central and Eastern Europe post WWII is a good example of national boundaries being imposed in tension with the natural map. In the 1990s, the natural map reasserted itself. The Czechs and Slovaks managed an amicable divorce, but Yugoslavia was too entangled and erupted in war.

The borders of the Middle East, defining countries like Jordan, Syria and Iraq, were drawn up in the peace conferences after WWI and WWII, and largely represent the global ambitions of the victorious powers at the various conferences. These countries are largely fictional. Most people in them do not, it seems, identify as being a citizen of that country, but as being a member of their own particular ethnic group. These countries were only held together by repressive governments. Now, after the removal of Saddam Hussein, the sectarian violence in Iraq, and the Arab spring, the idea that the government cannot be resisted has been undermined, and various groups are taking things into their own hands.

From here, I can see three ways to go. Firstly, the current governments effectively repress the mobs, and force the lid back on the simmering pot for a few more years, til it all erupts again.

Secondly, the whole Middle East could peacefully reorganise itself along a lines of European style centralised regulation, with a high degree of regional cultural independence. I consider this massively unlikely.

Thirdly, and most likely, the area slides into further ethnic and civil war, going through a particularly long and bloody Balkanisation. I would imagine this taking quite a few years to play out, lead to millions of deaths and huge refugee flows, and really screw up the worlds oil supply networks. Because of the oil, the world's great powers will want to push for option one, and keep deferring the problem.

At the end of the day, I imagine the Middle East with radically different borders. Not only would various Shi'ite groups and Sunni groups have their own countries, so too should the Kurds, the Palestinians, and many other minorities. Many of the Arab states, especially the Gulf Emirates, have (One Side) majority populations, with (Other Side) rulers. That has to change.

TL/DR: Like the Balkans, only longer, bigger, and with oil.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Now the Russians are going to supply Syria with an anti-aircraft rocket system, to kill any west imposed no-fly zone, it may get very hot, very soon.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

... At the end of the day, I imagine the Middle East with radically different borders. Not only would various Shi'ite groups and Sunni groups have their own countries, so too should the Kurds, the Palestinians, and many other minorities. ...

Sounds like too much work. Maybe the nuclear powers in the region can divvy up the rest of the geography and wipe out those populations. All they do is bicker anyway.

[ZenGum]

I forgot to mention how many of the great cities are multi-ethnic.

Czechia and Slovakia had a reasonably straight border that produced roughly convex country shapes with the majority of the ethnic sorting already done. The former Yugoslavia didn't. Consider also the partitioning of India/Pakistan.

This could get quite messy.

And how much will the great powers get involved?

See, here's where a long term autocracy would have benefits for the US. Over the next five years the US government could spend, rough guess, a trillion dollars in a process of banning oil imports, and subsidising the creation of an alternative fuel network on eg hydrogen, biofuel, electric etc etc.

But that would be an outrageous interference in the natural market system, and a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

So instead, over the next five years, they'll spend two trillion dollars on building military capability and using it to "stabilise" the middle east, because the nation needs the oil.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to simply walk away from the greater middle east, let them sort their shit out in whatever way seems fit to them, and maybe just take a humanitarian interest in the people there?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The borders of the Middle East, defining countries like Jordan, Syria and Iraq, were drawn up in the peace conferences after WWI and WWII, and largely represent the global ambitions of the victorious powers at the various conferences. These countries are largely fictional. Most people in them do not, it seems, identify as being a citizen of that country, but as being a member of their own particular ethnic group. These countries were only held together by repressive governments. Now, after the removal of Saddam Hussein, the sectarian violence in Iraq, and the Arab spring, the idea that the government cannot be resisted has been undermined, and various groups are taking things into their own hands.

I agree with pretty much all of this. I read an article a few years back (can’t find it) predicting that in 2100, there will be twice as many countries than what exists today due to the nation-state boundaries not taking ethnic differences into account. Africa is the main one.

From here, I can see three ways to go.

This scares me as well. My outcome predictions are a little different but boil down to basically the same thing. Also, it seems clear that the situation has gotten so bad so quickly that a peace deal will never be accepted by all parties.

If Al Assad and his allies win, a major crackdown will ensue and regime change will be unlikely in other countries (Iran, etc.). This will probably result in the most stable condition for a non-peace outcome but the problem is that this peace will likely be temporary. Things may boil over later or may not.

If the Syrian rebels win and the fighting remains isolated within Syria, there may be vast amounts of Shia ethnic cleansing and the government that follows (if one even does) will likely be unfriendly to not only U.S. and Israel, but also its Iraqi (mainly Shia) neighbors. This is not a stable condition.

If the fighting erupts into a Greater Middle Eastern War, then the outcome is anyone’s guess. While a re-divided Middle East is a potential option, it may also end up not being as “clean” as the Balkans, resulting in further problems. Or, one side may end up winning and the region becomes more centralized as well. I don’t think we can automatically assume that decentralization of nations is the only possible option.

The reactions from Israel, Turkey, Iran, Europe, Russia, and China are up for grabs as well. Russia and China care more about stability and economic gains than ideology so their “loyalty” could be lost or transferred instantly. If Assad falls and the fighting expands or continues, it isn’t about regime change anymore for Europe and the US. Both sides will likely be unfriendly to Israel.


In hindsight, this entire Arab Spring may also cause reflections of foreign policy strategies. I think Obama is going to find out the hard way that having good intentions and pushing for the best outcome (peace deal) may unintentionally result in a much more destructive outcome. As realpolitik as it sounds, if the US and Europe supported Assad from the beginning, many lives would be saved. On the other hand, pursuing realpolitik policies that doesn't take civilian opinion into account, like China and Russia is now and the US has in the past, may also result in a more unstable environment that becomes extremely hostile. The shortcomings of all the major foreign policy ideologies may be exposed in the next few years.

[ZenGum]

Yes, the possibility of a long war that leaves one group dominating other groups across a large area, still in violation of the "natural political map", is an outcome I hadn't listed. That would just defer the situation for another generation.

[piercehawkeye45]

Fareed Zakaria gives a historical perspective of why the US should not intervene in Syria. The argument is that Syria closely resembles Lebanon and Iraq where all three countries had (colonial installed) minority ruling regimes. In both Lebanon and Iraq, decade long civil wars broke out and he doesn’t expect Syria to be any different, whether the US intervenes or not. In this case, the US cannot stop the violence; we can just influence who is on the receiving end…

[Undertoad]

Add this to your speculation ZG:

-- US oil production is rising quite sharply; it rose more than 10% in 2012

-- As of last month, US oil production is higher than consumption for the first time since 1995

-- Most US oil imports are from Canada

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

-- As of last month, US oil production is higher than consumption for the first time since 1995

No way. That can't be true. Did you mean to type that? We're a net oil producer now, not a consumer?

[Undertoad]

Yes, and which state is the second-highest producer of oil, behind Texas?

North Dakota!

[gvidas]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Fareed Zakaria gives a historical perspective of why the US should not intervene in Syria. The argument is that Syria closely resembles Lebanon and Iraq where all three countries had (colonial installed) minority ruling regimes. In both Lebanon and Iraq, decade long civil wars broke out and he doesn’t expect Syria to be any different, whether the US intervenes or not. In this case, the US cannot stop the violence; we can just influence who is on the receiving end…

I really enjoyed that video. I think Fareed Zakaria is pretty sharp.

I also really enjoyed this series of counter-points, via Ta Nehisi Coates:

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...istory/276797/

Apparently there's a lot of historical context that he glosses hard, in giving the historical context.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Fareed Zakaria gives a historical perspective of why the US should not intervene in Syria.

Or just go back to posts in 2003 when scumbags in America gleefully planned to massacre 5000 Americans for no useful purpose. The same arguments apply. 1) Where is the smoking gun? 2) What is the strategic objective? 3) What is the exit strategy defined by that objective?

Zarkaria's discussion dovetails quite nicely with what everyone here - at this point there should be no one - what everyone here should have learned from recent history. Or what was then called Deja vue Nam.

He even asks a simple question. Who is the enemy? Because our leaders in 2002 were so dumb, they even failed to answer that question. As a result, almost everyone in Iraq was the enemy. Because none of those three key points existed to justify military action.

[ZenGum]

Having seen "convincing evidence" of (small scale) use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces, Obama has approved "military support" for the opposition.

There is no part of this I am comfortable with.

[glatt]

Me neither.

As a parent, you have to set limits and when the limits are tested, you have follow through with the consequences or your kids will know you are a total pushover.

Obama said if they crossed the line, he would do this. I wish he hadn't said that. He painted himself into the corner. But it's not like it's this crazy thing he said. It's reasonable to say that using chemical weapons on your civilians is crossing the line. It's a messed up situation. I just hope we don't give them any really good weapons they can use against us later.