Future of Aleppo

Mostly just want to link to this for my own selfish future reference. From time to time I make the effort to figure out who's who and who's fighting whom.

With the fall of Aleppo, more than 80,000 mainstream rebels across Syria are at a strategic crossroads, facing three broad choices: go underground, join multinational operations against the Islamic State, or fight on under the ranks of hardline jihadist groups.

There is a quiz. I got 12 out 20 showing how little I know about it. 

Stabilizing Syria

A good video and article at CSM on ISIS in Syria.

Perhaps most crucially, the West and Russia have moved closer than at any time in the past four years toward a political solution in Syria, which many believe is central to fighting IS-inspired terrorism.

“There is a new pragmatism emerging in Europe to work with Russia and Iran, and other European partners, and to try and work towards a political solution,” says Eugene Rogan, director of the Middle East Centre at the University of Oxford.

Russia and Assad both exist. Surprisingly, no mention of Iran, though.

US-led efforts to eradicate IS were complicated after Russia intervened six weeks ago, with an expeditionary force of about 50 attack aircraft and supporting troops. But there is a growing consensus, given the reach and sophistication of IS terror, that Russia has helped change the diplomatic conversation, especially the idea that overthrowing Assad is an impossible immediate goal.

“It is dawning on everyone that the only way out of this is a political solution that takes into account the Assad government and the large numbers of people it represents. It hasn't survived for four years, with all the forces arrayed against it, without strong social roots," says Sergei Karaganov, a senior Russian foreign policy expert. 

.....

Talks in Vienna on Syria have already made more progress in the past 10 days than in the previous four years, says Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the international affairs committee of the Federation Council, Russia's Senate. A rough draft of a transitional program lays out a path to a ceasefire, a new Syrian constitution, and fresh elections within 18 months. 

.....

The issue of Assad, and whether he might be allowed to run in new elections, remains the key obstacle. The US and all its allies insist that while Assad may be allowed to play some sort of transitional role, he must leave soon. The Russians say they are not wedded to Assad, but remain vague on when and how he might relinquish power.

That might stymie forward movement in the peace process, since most Syrian rebels have insisted they will never deal with Assad. “One of the problems at Vienna is that we still don't have any definition of 'moderate' rebels. Everyone will agree that IS and Al Qaeda must be excluded. But there are many rebels who took up arms to depose Assad, that is why they are in the field,” says Sergei Strokan, international affairs columnist with the Moscow daily Kommersant.

"It is urgently necessary to drop all the polemics, and identify those forces who might be ready to stop shooting, sit down at the negotiating table, and then participate in a provisional government. This sort of thing has happened in many places, at many times, and it's perfectly possible for Syria.

Amen to that thought. 

Dear God, Get Us the Fuck Out of Syria

No, that really is my prayer. Otherwise I end up saying shit like, "there's no difference between Dems and Reps." Andrew Bacevich has been busy lately. With neo-cons on the Right and Obama doing his best imitation that's all to the best.

First, the United States undoubtedly possesses the wherewithal to topple the regime of Bashar Assad. On this score, the hawks are surely right. Whether acting alone, with allies, or through proxies, Washington over the past decade or so has demonstrated an impressive capacity to overthrow governments. Skeptical? Consider the fate of various evil-doers on whom we trained our gun-sights in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

Second, once Washington has removed Assad as it did Saddam Hussein, the likelihood of the United States being able to put things right — creating a “new” Syria that is stable, humane, and grateful for American assistance — is approximately nil. Here the evidence supports the doves. Skeptical? Again, consider the course of events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya once the evil-doers departed the scene.

It's all too good to pick and choose from. If you've stumbled in here from wherever, go and read it. If Barack Obama comes by: leave it to the Russians! If they're stupid enough to get involved: let them have it. 

Charles Pierce on the same subject, being equally vulgar. 

​I am getting ominous 1965 flashbacks again. Robert McNamara and Creighton Abrams are starting to appear in my mind's eye, pointing down a long, dark tunnel at the lights of an oncoming train.​

Syria Won't Go Away

They didn't learn from Afghanistan. But, what am I saying, we haven't learned anything from Afghanistan either.

If we're backing al-Qaeda, we shouldn't be there.

Putting up a link to this monograph from the Army War College that I haven't read yet. Don't want to lose it, tho.

My understanding before I do is that on one side is Assad, Russians, Iran and Hezbollah. On another side is ISIS, al-Qaeda and some rebel groups. PKK Kurds are also against ISIS. Turkey is against Assad, but also ISIS and the PKK. At this point, I have no idea who we are aligned with or whom I would want to see us aligned with.

At the moment, the Assad government seems to be making some gains, and the rebel forces are split into three broad groups of the Free Syrian Army, the Islamic Front (backed by the Gulf States), and two al-Qaeda groups (Al Nusrah and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria [ISIS]). ISIS has alienated all the other factions and is likely to retreat to Iraq, but the Al Nusrah Front is operating in a loose alliance with the Islamic Front.

****************

This resurgence may be a temporary phenomenon, with al-Qaeda taking advantage of the chaos in Syria, the weak government response in Iraq, and the simmering discontent in other Muslim countries that has followed the Arab Spring. Their recent gains are substantial, but there are reasons to doubt if al-Qaeda’s power and appeal within the wider salafi-jihadist movement, especially in Syria, can be sustained. Here, different coalitions have recently disavowed al-Qaeda and, in some cases, are in open conflict with its militias. There is a case to argue that al-Qaeda has managed to exploit an opportunity but lacks the ability to broaden its appeal sufficiently to make long-term gains.

****************

Despite the attention paid to the resurgence of alQaeda, the bigger problem dominating the Middle East scene is the escalation of the Sunni-Shia divide. This split is reflected in the civil wars in Syria and Iraq and, in turn, has an international aspect as Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia are fighting a proxy Muslim civil war, particularly in Syria.

Do we want to be in the middle of a Muslim civil war that's been going for 1500 years? I can't imagine why. 

If the apparent resurgence is to be understood, then paying careful attention to what is, sometimes lazily, labeled al-Qaeda is important.

It's not your father's al-Qaeda. 

Every religious terrorist is not necessarily a member of al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda does not represent all groups within the global salafijihadist movement. These differences are becoming increasingly apparent in Syria as the civil war rages on and fluid alliances are continually being made and broken within the opposition to the Assad regime. Jihadism in Syria is revealing the fault lines between al-Qaeda and other Sunni freedom fighters and may give us a better indication of whether al-Qaeda is surviving, transforming, or slowly dying.

The reason they're able to operate in Syria, Libya and Iraq is because of the anarchy there. Solve the anarchy and deprive them of a safe base of operations. Easier said than done, of course.

Juan Cole has dissuaded me from the idea that leaving Assad in power is any kind of solution either.

I should explain that with Syria, I”m just trying to analyze. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I despise the al-Assad regime, which is genocidal and has engaged in mass torture. But I absolutely refuse to support any group allied with Ayman al-Zawahiri’s al-Qaeda or which envisions Syria as a hardline 

Salafi emirate where Christians, Alawites, Druze and Kurds (altogether maybe 40% of the population) as well as secular Sunni Arabs (another 45%) are second class citizens ruled by a self-appointed morals police with machine guns.

I have a sinking suspicion that my position on al-Qaeda as a red line is not shared by some high US officials. If I am right about this, they should be ashamed of themselves and go back and read about the origins of al-Qaeda in 1980s Afghanistan. US-supported jihads have a way of biting us on the ass.

Good and bad in today’s Syria is also contextual. Having the Baath Party or its goons, the Shabiha, rule religious Sunnis is bound to cause inequities. But for the fundamentalists to conquer Alawite Latakia or the Druze regions would result in an enormous tragedy.

Ultimately Syria can only be healed by democracy and the separation of religion and state. Neither the regime nor the rebels get this, and there is no guarantee they ever will.

I suppose it makes me feel better that Juan Cole has found no one to get behind either. 

Russia Can't Make Things Worse

That may be overly optimistic thinking. Whatever the Russians are doing in Syria almost has to cause an improvement. Please!

Up to now, a key stumbling block for the US and Russia has been their disagreement over the future of Assad, with Russia insisting he must be part of any political resolution and the US saying he must go. Russia does not appear to have budged, but the US and some other Western powers, including Germany, appear to be considering the idea that Assad might have to figure temporarily in an internationally brokered political transition.

The signs of an apparent Western shift in thinking on Assad comes from the stalled efforts to weaken and destroy the Islamic State, as well as the lack of a viable alternative to Assad. Obama will hold a summit of the anti-Islamic State collation countries on Tuesday, but his update on the campaign against the group will not be bright.

Since the European countries are being overrun with immigrants from Syria I can understand how they are ready to settle for Assad. My feelings for awhile now have been that asshole though he may be, we don't have much of an alternative, at least in the short run. And in the long run we're all dead anyway. Imposing democracy on the countries of the Middle East hasn't been a great success. Here's hoping there's a way to kind of slowly back away. 

Hold Your Nose and Back Assad

Reality is sinking in on the situation in Syria. Assad is a son of a bitch, but he has to be our son of a bitch.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has to go – but the timing is negotiable, Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday.  

Speaking after talks with British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, Kerry called on Russia and Iran to use their influence to bring President Assad to the table, Reuters reports.

Lots of Links on the Middle East

Despite the United States, Iraq seems to maybe be cobbling together a government.

Iraq’s parliament has passed the most sweeping political reforms in the country’s post-Saddam history, prompting euphoria over the ability of peaceful public protests to bring about meaningful change.

In the midst of a sweltering summer, public protests in Baghdad, Basra, and other cities over corruption and a lack of services have provided Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi a mandate to cut across sectarian and political lines and push through the drastic changes.

Demands for change by Iraq’s most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, sealed the deal, allowing quick cabinet approval and an unprecedented unanimous vote Tuesday in Iraq’s fractious parliament.

The reforms would eliminate multiple positions of vice president and deputy prime minister traditionally negotiated between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds as well as other senior posts for political appointees. Up to a dozen government ministries would also be cut.

Then there is the effort to bring peace, or at least less war, to Syria. 

More than two dozen people were killed in airstrikes in and around the Syrian capital Damascus early Wednesday, casting doubt on an already shaky premise of an Iranian-led peace initiative. 

The attacks — a combination of rebel shelling and government airstrikes — came just hours before the scheduled arrival of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif. He was expected to speak about Iran’s prospective four-point peace plan for ending Syria’s grinding four-year civil war, which is said to include a cease-fire and “national unity government,” the Associated Press reports. 

...

Recent negotiations aimed at achieving the cease-fire in Zabadani, which lies northwest of Damascus, and in the northern villages of Foua and Kfarya were seen as consistent with an evolving Iran-backed plan to contract the territory controlled by Assad to manageable dimensions, The Christian Science Monitor has reported.

Assad will soon control just Damascus. Or possibly the ground he stands on. 

The group United Against A Nuclear Iran lost its president. 

When the bipartisan advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran decided last week to mobilize opposition against the nuclear deal with Tehran, their president, Gary Samore stepped down, The New York Times reported.

Mr. Samore, a former nuclear adviser to President Obama, initially felt “chances of a successful negotiation were dim. But after the framework of an accord was announced in Lausanne, Switzerland, in April, he praised it as a good step,” The Times noted. “I think President Obama’s strategy succeeded,” he told the Times.

And as Shaw points out at Progressive Eruptions, we need to listen to the generals. 

Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.

Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”

And hating on Iran creates strange bedfellows: Israelis and Saudis embracing on enemy of my enemy basis. 

For now, any peace feelers are based on what Israel and Saudi Arabia jointly oppose, not what they might gain in benefits from friendly relations. And that list only gets longer.

For starters, they do not like the Iran nuclear deal based on their concern that it might embolden Iran and its militant proxies in the Middle East, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to rebels in Yemen. But they also worry about a collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and the rise of Islamic State and other jihadi groups. And preventing Hamas in Gaza from starting another war with Israel is also in their interest.

Ain't love grand?

Another Upside to the Iran Deal

Getting past the negotiations on the Iran deal, and assuming it gets the Tom Cotton seal of approval, means maybe we can get to work on the mess that is Syria. Or we could start small with Yemen.

Approval of a United Nations Security Council resolution on chemical attacks in Syria suggests that conclusion of the Iran nuclear talks last month may have paved the way to renewed diplomatic action on the Middle East’s deadliest conflict.

With Russia joining the United States in support of the resolution passed Friday, US diplomats and some regional experts say signs are growing that a door has reopened – if only slightly so far – to finding a political settlement to Syria’s civil war, now in its fifth year.

If we can't get any resolution on the Ukraine maybe we can at least get something moving on this bloody conflict.

Russia is showing signs of wanting to get the diplomatic train on Syria moving again. Next week, the Russian government will receive in Moscow both representatives of the Syrian political opposition and Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir for talks on ending the Syrian conflict.

Iran is also getting into the act, announcing recently that it would soon present a four-point Syria peace plan to the UN.

Any hopes are just a flicker at the moment.

“We still haven’t got to the position, particularly from the Russian side, that a negotiated solution by all the parties is the needed outcome,” he says. “Nor has the US been willing to countenance that some form of the Assad regime be included in negotiations. Until you bridge that somehow,” he adds, “there’s not much room to move forward.”

Yes, Assad needs to be included.