Is there a military solution to Syria?

Zambia

That's the question, very simply put.

Can a coalition force disarm the country and depose Assad.
Remove IS forces.
Disarm the rebels
Then allow some sort of elections.

Essentially the country needs resetting.

I think it can be but the cost would be high.

endacl

Perhaps.

Perhaps the whole Middle East should be left to sort it's own shyte out once and for all. No arms and equipment in. No oil out. As a region, it's a spoilt toddler, in a tantrum since the 1940s.

Time to grow up.

Peregrinus

Zambia wrote: »

That's the question, very simply put.

Can a coalition force disarm the country and depose Assad.
Remove IS forces.
Disarm the rebels
Then allow some sort of elections.

Isn't that, more or less, what was attempted in Iraq?

With results which, on the most upbeat view, were mixed.

On a more pessimistic view, what was done in Iraq is a large part of the reason why we are where we are in Syria right now. Which would suggest that doing it again in Syria would not have a good outcome.

I'm deeply sceptical of the idea of a military solution to Syria. I get that to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and the United States in particular has a very, very big hammer. But that doesn't mean that every problem actually is a nail.

Zambia

endacl wrote: »

Perhaps.

Perhaps the whole Middle East should be left to sort it's own shyte out once and for all. No arms and equipment in. No oil out. As a region, it's a spoilt toddler, in a tantrum since the 1940s.

Time to grow up.

That's not the question in fairness?

Essentially your saying let them keep killing each other. While I'm saying someone else needs to wade in and basically kill people until they stop their ****e.

It's a lose lose scenario. There is no good answer we are looking for the least harmful one.

AngryHippie

endacl wrote: »

Perhaps.

Perhaps the whole Middle East should be left to sort it's own shyte out once and for all.

They will end up eating each other. It can't end well and there are civilian populations stuck in the middle that the UN is mandated to protect.

No arms and equipment in. No oil out.

I agree 100% with that. Demilitarize the whole place.

As a region, it's a spoilt toddler, in a tantrum since the 1940s. .

I think you will find its been that way since the Romans, and possibly before. Which probably makes it a twisted old pervy uncle rather than a toddler.

Grab All Association

Colonisation

endacl

Zambia wrote: »

That's not the question in fairness?

Essentially your saying let them keep killing each other. While I'm saying someone else needs to wade in and basically kill people until they stop their ****e.

It's a lose lose scenario. There is no good answer we are looking for the least harmful one.

That us the question. Proxy wars and outside selfish interference is what has the place in the state that it's in. The Middle East has never been allowed define itself.

Wading in is the problem.

Victor

It's not about oil, money, politics or religion. It's about power. The authoritarian regimes (of whatever persuasion) have power and the people have little. That pushes the people towards alternative power structures.

The military solution is to have a socio-political one. Any purely military solution just kicks the ball down the road. That said, removing heavy weapons from the likes of ISIS would be welcome.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Demilitarize the whole place.

Complete demilitarization just gives the one guy with the one gun all the power.

However, the open arms market needs to be shut down and military equipment restricted to competent, state-controlled, popular militaries. That means shutting down the pro- (Saudi Arabian National Guard) and anti-regime (Taliban) militias, political militias (Hamas, Hizbollah, Mahdi Army) and demilitarising police. A hard look should also be taken at tribal militias.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

However, the open arms market needs to be shut down and military equipment restricted to competent, state-controlled, popular militaries.

Are there any in the region that tick all those boxes? Serious question.

Because, if there aren't, does the proposal really come down to "stop the fighting by massive force, and then try to foster stable popular political institutions which can effectively provide and control competent militaries that enjoy popular acceptance".

Which has been tried before, without much success.

Zambia

While I agree the best solution is to left them fight it out till they are sick of punching each other can we let that happen in this day and age.

Can we just sit by and watch as they rip each other to pieces. I mean how many people have to die till that happens.

Syria is a huge country and I don't think it can be just taken over.

However if identifying the largest population centers with the most means to sustain life are selected and taken over creating safe havens. Maybe that is a start from these areas a base can be formed to retake the rest of the country. For Example Damascus and surrounds.

A political solution also has to be formed to follow the military one.

Royal Irish

Give them their holy war before they get the bomb.

AngryHippie

Give them their holy war before they get the bomb.

Too late, Pakistan, funny enough the same country where OBL managed to remain undetected for how long.

Demilitarize. let them learn to live together, die together or carve up their respective countries to suit their particular sects of man in the sky.

People sicken me. There are too many people.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

However, the open arms market needs to be shut down and military equipment restricted to competent, state-controlled, popular militaries.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are there any in the region that tick all those boxes? Serious question.

Israel*, Turkey*, Iran (excluding Republican Guard and other militias), Egypt, Pakistan* would be closest, in that order, but with most there is unhappy militiary-political balance and certainly in Egypt and Pakistan the militaries are elitist cartels. Many of the rest haven't a hope due to political interference and tribal / sectarian influences.

* Generally popular, but perhaps with only 80% of the population.

Because, if there aren't, does the proposal really come down to "stop the fighting by massive force, and then try to foster stable popular political institutions which can effectively provide and control competent militaries that enjoy popular acceptance".

In the case of ISIS, it means that individual Saudi Arabian citizens and other individuals need to stop funding and supplying them. Their heavy weapons need to be destroyed (by whatever means). And people need to be shown that there is another way.

In the rest of Syria, alternative power structures to the militias need to be fostered on a civic and then national level.

In the rest of the region, the dictatorships, monarchies and made-up countries need to under-go the political reforms that Europe underwent in the 1800-2000 period. Preferably doing in in a faster, but less bloody fashion.

Peregrinus

So you hope to compress two hundred years of political development into a small number of years, and do it without any wars?

Good luck with that!

Royal Irish

AngryHippie wrote: »

Too late, Pakistan, funny enough the same country where OBL managed to remain undetected for how long.

Demilitarize. let them learn to live together, die together or carve up their respective countries to suit their particular sects of man in the sky.

People sicken me. There are too many people.

Sorry I must have posted in the wrong thread. I thought this thread was about Syria.

Peregrinus

Royal Irish wrote: »

Sorry I must have posted in the wrong thread. I thought this thread was about Syria.

The OP raised the question of Syria, but in post #2 the discussion was expanded to "the whole Middle East".

And I think that's fair enough. One thing we can all probably agree on is that any approach to this problem which treats it as being confined to Syria is certain to fail; it would be an approach that flies in the face of reality.

Manach

Yes, judging from historical lessons a brutal intervention followed by long term (generational) garrisoning works: as per Hittites Romans French etc. Due to the modern natural of Western politics this will not be achieved from there, so some other regional power would need to step in.

BoJack Horseman

There is a military solution.

But it is one that can only be executed by the UN & on an unprecedented scale, with massive buy in from all corners of the globe.

And because the UN is ineptitude incarnate it will never happen.

Zambia

Peregrinus wrote: »

The OP raised the question of Syria, but in post #2 the discussion was expanded to "the whole Middle East".

And I think that's fair enough. One thing we can all probably agree on is that any approach to this problem which treats it as being confined to Syria is certain to fail; it would be an approach that flies in the face of reality.

Syria itself is too large a land mass to control, so sadly any solution would have to be concentrated on the issue at hand and it would need the inclusion of Arab forces.

Fratton Fred

How do you demilitarize and how do you enforce it?

Zambia

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How do you demilitarize and how do you enforce it?

Anyone found with a firearm has it taken off them by a another set of people with firearms.

Given the lawless nature of the place some small arms might be allowed but tanks , technicals, apv' s and similar would become A10 fodder.

Like I said there will be no perfect soloution.

Fratton Fred

Zambia wrote: »

Anyone found with a firearm has it taken off them by a another set of people with firearms.

Given the lawless nature of the place some small arms might be allowed but tanks , technicals, apv' s and similar would become A10 fodder.

Like I said there will be no perfect soloution.

So effectively, what NATO was doing in Afghanistan?

donaghs

Zambia wrote: »

That's the question, very simply put.

Can a coalition force disarm the country and depose Assad.
Remove IS forces.
Disarm the rebels
Then allow some sort of elections.

Essentially the country needs resetting.

I think it can be but the cost would be high.

Do a deal with Assad? Give him the means to end the war? He's already proven his ability to run the country pre-Arab Spring. And has a good track record for protecting the rights of minorities in Syria (provided they don't oppose him...). Especially compared with ISIL (and the other fanatics who have Gulf and Turkish support).

What do you want Syria to be with Assad gone? Maybe that could be part of such a deal with Assad. Possibly could be used to get the Russians to rebuild ties with "the West".

NIMAN

These countries need a few more revolutions.

Fratton Fred

donaghs wrote: »

Do a deal with Assad? Give him the means to end the war? He's already proven his ability to run the country pre-Arab Spring. And has a good track record for protecting the rights of minorities in Syria (provided they don't oppose him...). Especially compared with ISIL (and the other fanatics who have Gulf and Turkish support).

What do you want Syria to be with Assad gone? Maybe that could be part of such a deal with Assad. Possibly could be used to get the Russians to rebuild ties with "the West".

The thing is, it appears a large number of Syrians want Assad gone and are not going to enter talks with him there.

pablomakaveli

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There is a military solution.

But it is one that can only be executed by the UN & on an unprecedented scale, with massive buy in from all corners of the globe.

And because the UN is ineptitude incarnate it will never happen.

Given Assad is backed by the Russians who have a veto in the SC council it wouldnt even get off the ground anyway.

YellowSheep

I used to work in the Middle East for a over 6 years and I always found.
One Arab is cool.
Two Arabs is an argument.
Three Arabs is war.
And this did not matter how ultra or no ultra religious they were or were they came from. This will be an unsolvable problem.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

So you hope to compress two hundred years of political development into a small number of years, and do it without any wars?

Good luck with that!

Quite a few Central / Eastern European countries have had no history of democracy until the 1990s. They went from monarchies to a hodge-podge of dictatorships or unstable democracies, to Soviet control. They seem to be getting on mostly OK. Admittedly, some haven't.

But, yes, power in the form of personalities and tribalism gets in the way.

ted1

In one word No, other than total anilation of IS troops.
These guys are total nut jobs, they believe death is a reward and don't fear it.
There's a reason no country will send in ground troops against them and any that meet them turn and run.

BoJack Horseman

ted1 wrote: »

In one word No, other than total anilation of IS troops.
These guys are total nut jobs, they believe death is a reward and don't fear it.
There's a reason no country will send in ground troops against them and any that meet them turn and run.

Correction..... Iraqi troops turn & run.

ISIS are well equipped, but no match for a professional well led, & equipped force.

None exist in the area that will do that role though & the ones that exist in the world (US, Russia, China) dont want to either way.

So technically a military solution isn't that difficult, but you are right, no one wants to do it

Mac222

Are the yanks responsible for this ?

BoJack Horseman

Mac222 wrote: »

Are the yanks responsible for this ?

No...

An uprising by a people tired of being under the thumb of a dictator started it.
As is usually the case with a civil war.

Victor

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Correction..... Iraqi troops turn & run.

While not necessarily untrue, it is unkind and lacks context. The context is that the Iraqi military is packed with Shia Arabs, but they were holding Sunni Arab areas. Things were quite different in Shia Arab and Kurdish areas - resistance was much firmer..

Many governments / militaries fail to defend those that they don't identify with - look at George Bush promoting the Shia rebellion in Iraq in 1991 and then doing nothing to support it. Or the withdrawal from Vietnam. Or any number of campaigns in other wars.

ISIS are well equipped

I'm not sure about that. Yes, they have acquired lots of formerly Iraqi and Syrian equipment, but not necessarily the means to use, supply or maintain it.

but no match for a professional well led, & equipped force.

However, ISIS does have motivation on its side. And in the face of a concerted challenge, they will simply play the long game.

None exist in the area that will do that role though & the ones that exist in the world (US, Russia, China) dont want to either way.

So technically a military solution isn't that difficult, but you are right, no one wants to do it

It's not just about want. There are the matters of logistics and ability to actually do anything. If someone put a million troops into Syria, ISIS would just move elsewhere - they have no particular affiliation to the land they hold. This isn't WWII.

Severard

Of course it CAN be done. But the ones who are capable of doing it will look at it first and say "how can WE benefit from this situation while at the same time our opponents suffer from it?"

The Saudis and the Iranians will never come to terms. It's not just Syria but Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Bahrain have the same problems to a certain degree as well due to Saudi Arabia and Iran. As for Europe it's not fully committed on what to do. [1]

Russia on the other hand doesn't want to lose it's influence in Syria and already has troops in Syria fighting alongside Assad [2]. It is also willing to send up to 3,000 more to help as well [3].

The U.S. could certainly help but Barack Obama doesn't have the spine to do it. This was made all too clear with his "red line" speech (which he made more than once) on chemical weapons usage in Syria. [4].

There is also the issue of who is who in this war. There is so many that have some form of interest in this from Canada to North Korea and all the various groups in between that are trying to influence how it will pan out. [5].

If Assad is killed the Rebels will turn on each other, they're doing already to a certain degree and if he wins then there will be nothing short of ethnic cleansing for any that are left to oppose him. (Strangely enough the Islamic State and Al Nusra will fight together in one part of the country yet they'll simultaneously fight against one another in another part. Just plain crazy).

So in short

i) "Can a coalition force disarm the country and depose Assad." - Possible but highly unlikely.

ii) "Remove IS forces." - Not likely to happen.

iii) "Disarm the rebels" - Again not likely to happen as they won't trust Assad.

iv) "Then allow some sort of elections." Can't see it happening either, yet it would be great if it did.


[1] http://www.neurope.eu/article/eu-undecided-lifting-syria-arms-ban/

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11845635/Vladimir-Putin-confirms-Russian-military-involvement-in-Syrias-civil-war.html

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/world/middleeast/russian-moves-in-syria-pose-concerns-for-us.html

[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2015/02/16/how-obamas-red-lines-made-the-world-much-more-dangerous/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

ted1

Mac222 wrote: »

Are the yanks responsible for this ?

Yes, they destabilised the entire region. Gadaffi and Hussien and the Talaban held the place together.

ted1

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Correction..... Iraqi troops turn & run.

ISIS are well equipped, but no match for a professional well led, & equipped force.

None exist in the area that will do that role though & the ones that exist in the world (US, Russia, China) dont want to either way.

So technically a military solution isn't that difficult, but you are right, no one wants to do it

All troops they meet turn and run. Their beheadings and torture methods are very effective into scaring the bejaysus out of their opposition

Victor

Severard wrote: »

Russia on the other hand doesn't want to lose it's influence in Syria and already has troops in Syria fighting alongside Assad [2].

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11845635/Vladimir-Putin-confirms-Russian-military-involvement-in-Syrias-civil-war.html

That article suggests that is not the situation - that is is mostly trainers, technicians and advisers, although it doesn't rule out Russians having been involved in combat, what with it being a multi-front civil war.

Severard

Victor wrote: »

That article suggests that is not the situation - that is is mostly trainers, technicians and advisers, although it doesn't rule out Russians having been involved in combat, what with it being a multi-front civil war.

You are correct, I meant to post this one instead. This is claimed by the Syrian government, as well as opposition forces and activists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11840713/Russian-troops-fighting-alongside-Assads-army-against-Syrian-rebels.html

Markcheese

Assad is fighting " the rebels " , Isis are some of the rebels and fighting the rest - as are the pkk - the Iranians are backing Assad and backing hesbollah to fight Isis - the Turks are having a go at the pkk - But aren't backing Isis anymore - the Russians are backing Assad - I think the Americans are trying to back the rest of the anti- Assad forces-oh and the Saudis will be backing the suni forces
So it's simple really what the west should do to sort it all out easily - ah um if they -

donaghs

Perhaps its best to put yourself in the feet of a Syrian, or imagine yourself having lived there. What would you see as the best realistic solution to this?

I think it always comes back to some form of bringing control of the country back to Assad. Even when the rebellion started, it was unclear where it would lead, and there was strong likely of the majority Sunni-influence leading to a new theocratic persecution. Minorities, not just Alawites, general fear the alternative more than Assad.

The US and Russia were able to come together to enforce destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, so it can still be possible to get Assad to agree to further compromises that people may have in mind. e.g. not persecuting civilians suspected of supporting rebels, international monitors etc.

Interesting article here: http://www.ibtimes.com/how-isis-foreign-fighters-turned-syrias-first-revolutionaries-bashar-assad-supporters-1912167

Zambia

Markcheese wrote: »

Assad is fighting " the rebels " , Isis are some of the rebels and fighting the rest - as are the pkk - the Iranians are backing Assad and backing hesbollah to fight Isis - the Turks are having a go at the pkk - But aren't backing Isis anymore - the Russians are backing Assad - I think the Americans are trying to back the rest of the anti- Assad forces-oh and the Saudis will be backing the suni forces
So it's simple really what the west should do to sort it all out easily - ah um if they -

I don't remember saying the west.

BigDuffman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No...

An uprising by a people tired of being under the thumb of a dictator started it.
As is usually the case with a civil war.

I disagree. US action in Iraq lead to the formation of IS.

Yes, a drought lead to unfavorable conditions to which a frustrated populous rose against a dictator and started an insurgency / revolution that in turn has morphed into a civil war fought by foreign Jihadists. Which in turn has evolved into a battle ground between traditional Al Qaeda and IS.

US action in Iraq lead to the formation of ISI in (who followed a separate path to direction given by AQ). US action lead to the extreme brutal response and slick propaganda being churned out by IS. Toppling Assad is not a key objective on the IS agenda.

Unfortunately there is no other recourse bar military action if the international community want to respond. However a traditional approach will not work as the extremists cannot be fought with traditional methods. Giving IS a force to face down would just fuel their machine and cause unnecessary casualties on the side of the forces that are intervening. Nor would there ever be sanctioned mission by the UN on account of how intricate the politics in the region is, the Kurds, Turkey, the Saudis, Iraq and Russia and the inept structure of the UNSC.

A multinational "surgical strike" comprising of SF raids, air strikes supported by local int, whilst unsavoury is the only viable solution. Constant decapitation of the leadership will degrade their command structure over time.

The other solution is to ease of on the squeezing of Al Qaeda. As Al Qaeda still hold the Bay'ah or religious oaths of a lot of " affiliate" groups that would other wise join IS but are obliged to maintain true to the cause of AQ's leadership. If AQ in Syria are wiped out affiliates will be released from their Bay'ah and will take up the IS banner...worse news. Catch 22.

Victor

BigDuffman wrote: »

A multinational "surgical strike" comprising of SF raids, air strikes supported by local int, whilst unsavoury is the only viable solution. Constant decapitation of the leadership will degrade their command structure over time.

One has to be careful with things like this. With Hamas, constant targeting of the leadership simply created leaders who were more and more radical and less willing to see sense, balance or compromise. I'm not sure if ISIS can get more radical, but they can get more bloody.

Boreas

I started a thread over here on a possible unconventional solution.

Basically using Syrian volunteers to set up military units loosely modelled on the Czech and Polish units the UK set up in WWII.

IrishTrajan

endacl wrote: »

Perhaps.

Perhaps the whole Middle East should be left to sort it's own shyte out once and for all. No arms and equipment in. No oil out. As a region, it's a spoilt toddler, in a tantrum since the 1940s.

Time to grow up.

That seems like a good idea... Until you realize what sort of a pull that region has on the world. Even a brief war between Iran and Saudi Arabia could result in India, Japan and China suffering from oil shortages (Japan's 3 largest oil suppliers were Saudi, UAE and Iran).

The Middle East is a powder keg, and as much the world wants to wash its hands of it, it simply can't.

Victor

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Even a brief war between Iran and Saudi Arabia could result in India, Japan and China suffering from oil shortages (Japan's 3 largest oil suppliers were Saudi, UAE and Iran).

They would just buy their oil elsewhere. There are only modest differences between oil from different parts of the world. Although given the lag between demand and supply, prices would go through the roof.

IrishTrajan

Victor wrote: »

They would just buy their oil elsewhere. There are only modest differences between oil from different parts of the world. Although given the lag between demand and supply, prices would go through the roof.

That's a little harder than you'd expect. You'd probably have to retool your processing plants and stuff to handle oil you get from other places. There's also the little matter of geopolitics. Everyone in that region hates each other, even the people who are allies hate each other. It's a balancing act of "who do we want to be kept in equilibrium?"

donaghs

donaghs wrote: »

Do a deal with Assad? Give him the means to end the war? He's already proven his ability to run the country pre-Arab Spring. And has a good track record for protecting the rights of minorities in Syria (provided they don't oppose him...). Especially compared with ISIL (and the other fanatics who have Gulf and Turkish support).

What do you want Syria to be with Assad gone? Maybe that could be part of such a deal with Assad. Possibly could be used to get the Russians to rebuild ties with "the West".

Reckon a "military solution" is closer now that Russia is providing serious support for the Assad regime? airstrikes coordinated with ground assaults etc.

Markcheese

Any possibility of a federal style Syria ??- basically everyone ( except Isis ) gets to keep there bit- and stop beating strips off each other and start having a go at Isis instead ,where that will leave the Iranians- Russians-Turks ect ect -

discus

TSAR BOMBA

/end thread

mikeym

Russia seem to be doing a good job.