2011 Syrian Protests

samusaran253

So basically Syria is the next Libya. There's a civil war forming there, and it isn't very civil. The Syrian government has fired upon Syrian protestors and it's getting bloodier by the hour. What do you think will happen in Syria? Will this spark a civil war? Who do you support, the government or the protestors? Do you think the United States should intervene, like we did with Libya, and if so, how should we intervene? If you want, please try to keep all discussions and news articles about the Syrian protests in this thread.

samusaran253

Syria sends army reinforcements into Deraa

The Syrian army has sent more tanks and reinforcements into Deraa as part of a widening crackdown against opponents of the government, and sporadic explosions are being heard in the flashpoint southern city, witnesses say.

Witnesses said a convoy of about 30 tanks were seen on the circular highway outside the Syrian capital, Damascus, on Wednesday.

Troops have been deployed since Monday in Deraa - where the uprising began more than five weeks ago - and activists said more gunfire could be heard on Wednesday.

A resident of Deraa, speaking under the condition of anonymity for his own safety, said that security forces had taken over the town hospital, and were shooting at anyone who approached the building.

"Snipers are on top of all the buildings in Deraa and there are lots of bodies on the streets," the man said in a phone interview. "They were left on the street for three days and we couldn't remove them."

Troops had sealed off the town, and were searching homes at night.

Read more: http://aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/04/2011427142619235903.html

Dazza Mc kenna

its very worrying, Some Syrian that I know are fearing that if Assad is to go then an Islamic regime might get in power, they are saying that Syria might be the next Iran.

Einhard

samusaran253 wrote: »

So basically Syria is the next Libya.

There's a civil war forming there, and it isn't very civil.

Are they ever?

The Syrian government has fired upon Syrian protestors and it's getting bloodier by the hour. What do you think will happen in Syria? Will this spark a civil war?

I think the Syrian government will do everything in their power to crack down on and eliminate the protestors. I think the situation is far more complex and dangerous than in Egypt for example, where the was at once part of the regime, and removed from it- in the eyes of the people at least. Thus, the army could topple Mubarak, "side" with the protestors, and come out of it with their interests preserved, and even enhanced.

In Syria though, the army is very much part of the regime. It's not so much a tool of Assad's, as an itegral cog in the state apparatus. They cannot distance themselves from the regime as their colleagues in Egypt managed to do. Indeed, I've read that Assad has been willing to compromise to an extent, but has been opposed by hardliners in his government.

I think therefore that we're unlikely to see an Egyptian style revolution. The army will do what it has to do to end the revolts. In 1982, Assad's father and uncle oversaw the massacre of between 20,000 and 40,000 civilians in the city of Hama for doing precisely what the current protestors are. I don't know if the regime will go, or will be allowed to go, that far this time, but they certainly won't shy away from bloodshed to achieve their goals.

I also don't believe that there's much chance of a Libyan style conflict erupting. Libya is very sparsely populated, and vastyly larger than Syria. This, and the fact that it is still a very tribal society, limited the gadaffi regime in responding to events in the east of the country. There is not such an issue for the regime in Syria. They can respond to unrest far more quickly and efficently than could Gadaffi. Unfortunately, because of this, I don't think the dissidents in Syria have much of a chance, unless there is some outside intervention.

Who do you support, the government or the protestors?

Eh the protestors obviously...

Do you think the United States should intervene, like we did with Libya, and if so, how should we intervene?

I'd love if all dictators could be removed, and democracy installed, by outside military intervention. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I'm not sure if anything good could come out of military intervention, or even if an already stretched NATO could sustain it. Also, the situation in Syria and Libya are entirely different, and cannot be compared when one is discussing potential military intervention. I think targetted sanctions are the only way that the outside world can intervene at the moment.

However, if the Assad regime rachets up its crackdown, and a massacre even approaching that of Hamas is on the horizon, then I'd advocate military intervention to prevent it.

Zubeneschamali

Dazza Mc kenna wrote: »

Syria might be the next Iran.

So?

What's Iran ever done to you?

wes

What Assad is doing right now, is nothing short of horrible, and I believe the protesters to be in the right.

Jonny7

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So?

What's Iran ever done to you?

Nothing wrong with Iran or the Iranian people, they are great people, its the regime and power hungry religious 'old guard' who refuse to budge.

I don't want to derail thread, but 100's of thousands if not millions of Iranians protested and just were not successful in removing this regime.

Even the buddhist monks, a strong symbol in Burma, couldn't remove a bunch of fat generals who just live in luxury in the backs of their people

A determined dictator or regime can hold on if they have control of sufficient firepower i.e. strong military links/mercenaries/etc

I'm not so up on the Syrian situation but I've heard unconfirmed reports that the protestors disabled or destroyed three tanks with the help of military who have defected - this is a dangerous development - we've seen from recent events and history that dictators/regimes use this as a tool, that they are 'under attack' so to speak (a la Libya) and that they are defending their country from foreign agents/spies/coup/al qaeda/etc

mike65

Mass resignations from the governing Baa'th party this morning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/28/syria-hundreds-resign-baath-party

News of the resignations emerged as a deeply divided UN security council failed to agree on a European and US-backed statement condemning the government's use of violence.

The draft – proposed by France, Britain, Germany and Portugal – was opposed by several within the 15-member security council, including Russia, Lebanon and India.

Alexander Pankin, Russia's ambassador to the UN, warned that a "real threat to regional security could arise from outside interference in Syria's domestic situation".

France, Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain all summoned Syrian ambassadors in their countries and told them that they condemn the violence and said Assad must change tactics

One can see this reaching boiling point very quickly. How Iran reacts is the key here.

Jonny7

mike65 wrote: »

Mass resignations from the governing Baa'th party this morning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/28/syria-hundreds-resign-baath-party



One can see this reaching boiling point very quickly. How Iran reacts is the key here.

Yup, heard it on radio4 this morning, delighted - a strong move


Iran.. well..

Leadership born of revolution, then brutally crushing revolution when they rigged poll results, then praising the revolutions taking place across N Africa and ME, whilst putting down smaller protests in Tehran -

Now factor in that Syria is a strong ally And is having protests..

Its a challenge for Iran alright, I mean, how do they tie US and Israel into all this? I'm sure they'll find a way!

pablomakaveli

I was reading in yesterdays Examiner that Syrian tv stations were showing images of dead Syrian soldiers who had been mutilated and claimed that it was done by protestors but the anti-government side later claimed the soldiers had refused to fire on protestors and had been killed by their own.

Whatever the truth this is probably going to escalate into another bloody conflict. I wonder what affect this will have on neighbouring countries as well.

Manic Moran

Only two countries are militarily in a position to do anything about Syria: The US and Israel. Probably the two countries least likely to be accepted as 'help'. The EU members of NATO, possibly barring the Germans, are out of suitable ammo, to the derision of military commentators. Other Arab nations, even if they felt the inclination to do something, probably aren't capable of it.

The Syrian protestors are on their own. And the Syrian government has seen what happens when you don't crack down with the almighty sledgehammer.

NTM

nacho libre

I'll be surprised if we see an outside intervention. Bashar has the Russians on his side and many arab nations won't agree to a Libya style intervention in Syria. The Syrian regime, with the army on their side, will be confident they can ride this out.

As to how Iran will react, it will be aware that their enemies may use intelligence assets to try to destabilise them and their proxies, and try to counter it. This has been shown with the recent discovery of the star virus.

Nodin

samusaran253 wrote: »

So basically Syria is the next Libya. There's a civil war forming there, and it isn't very civil. The Syrian government has fired upon Syrian protestors and it's getting bloodier by the hour. What do you think will happen in Syria? Will this spark a civil war? Who do you support, the government or the protestors? Do you think the United States should intervene, like we did with Libya, and if so, how should we intervene? If you want, please try to keep all discussions and news articles about the Syrian protests in this thread.

Syria having its act considerably more together than the Libyan state, I'd imagine its going to be a protracted period of repression, killing and torture. As long as the army are behind the regime, the protesters are on borrowed time.

As laid out by MM, intervention is unlikely and would perhaps be unhelpful in any event.

RDM_83 again

I'm sure there's people here who know a lot more about this than me here...

But does Syria also not have some quite up to date missile defences anyway that may preclude use of air strikes without significant risks, I know the Israeli strike got however but whats the status of them at the present day, this article here has some analysis but its out of date

http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/syria-gets-russian-air-defense-system-595/

In addition I presume they have long range missiles aimed at Israel

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=216875

Jonny7

Despite world events focused elsewhere, the Syrian situation starting to get very nasty now.. reports of mass arrests on a huge scale, and unconfirmed reports of widespread use of torture

Its like a regime's true colours immediately come to light as soon as there are protests - and the Syrian one is no less nasty - whether the people prevail or not seems almost entirely determined by that regimes grip on the military.

Mubarak didn't have it, but Assad seems to, this will get worse before it gets better

wes

Jonny7 wrote: »

Mubarak didn't have it, but Assad seems to, this will get worse before it gets better

I think a lot of the military higher ups, and secret police types are largely Alawi, which is a Shia Islamic sect, and hence why Assad probably has more control, as he is using the specter of the Sunni majority enacting vengance on there people. Basically, Assad is using your basic fear mongering to keep them in line imho.

JBnaglfar

It seems that some form of international intervention in Syria is increasingly likely. Sanctions have been taken against some top officials in Syria, and the White House has warned 'additional steps' may be taken. Source Whether these steps alluded to by the US involve military intervention, or further sanctions can only be speculated on. One thing that is sure is that the violence continues. Syrians tanks rolled into the city Baniyas last night.

Jonny7

Oh jaysus, if the US get involved, all the heads will come piling into this thread, trying to enlighten us it was the US's secret plan to take over Syria all along, blah blah

Tanks rolling into one of the major protest hubs - this is getting too Libya like
Its reported people are forming human chains, I don't think that's gonna stop them somehow.

Nodin

....no, it just makes it easier to gun them down. Theres been the odd report of soldiers who refused to fire on protestors being gunned down by the secret police over the last few weeks.

The casualty rate seems to have decreased lately, but as they're now conducting raids and dragging people off, its probably just a change in tactics. Tis grim stuff.

Denerick

Very grim stuff. It seems to me that the protestors only hope is to appeal to the better angels of the military. The only problem is that the military don't appear to have any better angels (The few angels they did have seem to have a gaping bullet wound in their forehead)

Very very depressing stuff.

Knight990

I think it's quite likely that the United States might deploy an aircraft carrier to the region, etc. Flex the military muscle but as others in this thread have said, it is one of few countries who are in any kind of position to intervene, and even so they wont be welcome.

Since the no-fly zone angle in Libya has gone to the dogs, with the original mandate for maintaining a no-fly zone having deteriorated into direct attacks, I don't think that the US would try it again with Syria, even if they do have the military might to make it happen.

The US is at a critical moment in its foreign policy across the world. It is at a crossroads, if you like, and its actions with regard to Syria and Libya will mark the next few years of policy direction. I believe the US will either strike the anvil very hard in Syria with swift and brutal air-based intervention, or else leave the situation well alone. I don't think there'll be any middle ground.

It's my opinion that, due to the turmoil the US is currently in regarding Bin Laden's death and the sovereignty rows with Pakistan, the Syrian protesters will be on their own.

That said, I did see a video on Euronews (which was verified independently, I can find it for you upon request) showing a soldier who laid down his arms, rather than fire on protesters. If more soldiers see reason like that, the protests could become far less one-sided.

EDIT: Here's the video, thought i'd just dig it out anyway: http://www.euronews.net/2011/05/03/smuggled-pictures-show-syrian-soldiers-dilemma/

Jonny7

Knight990 wrote: »

I think it's quite likely that the United States might deploy an aircraft carrier to the region, etc. Flex the military muscle but as others in this thread have said, it is one of few countries who are in any kind of position to intervene, and even so they wont be welcome.

Since the no-fly zone angle in Libya has gone to the dogs, with the original mandate for maintaining a no-fly zone having deteriorated into direct attacks, I don't think that the US would try it again with Syria, even if they do have the military might to make it happen.

The US is at a critical moment in its foreign policy across the world. It is at a crossroads, if you like, and its actions with regard to Syria and Libya will mark the next few years of policy direction. I believe the US will either strike the anvil very hard in Syria with swift and brutal air-based intervention, or else leave the situation well alone. I don't think there'll be any middle ground.

It's my opinion that, due to the turmoil the US is currently in regarding Bin Laden's death and the sovereignty rows with Pakistan, the Syrian protesters will be on their own.

That said, I did see a video on Euronews (which was verified independently, I can find it for you upon request) showing a soldier who laid down his arms, rather than fire on protesters. If more soldiers see reason like that, the protests could become far less one-sided.

EDIT: Here's the video, thought i'd just dig it out anyway: http://www.euronews.net/2011/05/03/smuggled-pictures-show-syrian-soldiers-dilemma/

If the leadership has a good grip of its military (which it seems they do) and if the military are fairly ruthless with 'deserters' then its not good news

The US get involved in a 4th conflict? political and logistical suicide

Some dictators and regimes just can't be removed by force, theres no fairytale 'french revolution' for the people, the grip on the military is too strong, you revolt - you get crushed

Russia and Iran could lean on the Syrian leadership.. but.. yah pigs would fly

Knight990

Jonny7 wrote: »

If the leadership has a good grip of its military (which it seems they do) and if the military are fairly ruthless with 'deserters' then its not good news

The US get involved in a 4th conflict? political and logistical suicide

Some dictators and regimes just can't be removed by force, theres no fairytale 'french revolution' for the people, the grip on the military is too strong, you revolt - you get crushed

Russia and Iran could lean on the Syrian leadership.. but.. yah pigs would fly

I agree that the military is very close to the centre of power and that there is a ruthless system in place to deal with deserters.

The only way that desertions like this could gain any weight in meaningful support to the protesters (as opposed to the symbolic gesture of dropping their arms) is if either major numbers decide to defect, in which case reprimanding them would be almost impossible, or if certain, unique sections of the Army decide to defect (i.e.: a tank battalion could change matters far more than an Infantry battalion).

But yes, I concede that this is highly unlikely. I don't see a Civil War coming.

You're spot on with regards to the US. I reckon it would be just one step too far on an admittedly already crazy road.

Assad and his cronies may indeed just be too far entrenched to be removed by force, as you said. Oh well, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.