Which faction do you want to win the Syrian Civil War?

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

My general theory of this last week is that most of the world has to admit (to themselves and each other, behind closed doors) that they do not want Assad deposed because some of the plausible alternatives are much worse than Assad remaining in power.

So the mission becomes, deter Assad from future use of chemical weapons while in no way weakening his position.

It is a thread-the-needle mission of a sort that, upon reflection, most governments will conclude cannot plausibly by carried out by bombs.

That is, IMO, why the world has walked away from this thing. It is not that they do not care. It is that they are not confident that any target set, any particular set of GPS coordinates fed into missiles this week will reliably make the world a better place, over-all.

[phantom power]

1. the old false dichotomy fallacy

Either you're in favor of Doing Something!!11!, and apparently preferably Something With Bombs!11!! -- OR -- you're a borderline sociopath who doesn't care about dead civilians.

[dkf]

2. I read that the best outcome for us is if they keep on fighting each other which is a sick reality.

[MADem]

3. I would like to see a Yemen Scenario come into play for Syria.

Bashir-and his gas-happy brother, Maher-take a powder into exile; the VP fleets up to the Presidency, a cease fire is negotiated, and diplomacy resumes.

No regime change; no "rebels taking over," no "unseemly AQ influence," but a "reset" of the situation so that all sides can come to a table and have a conversation about Syria's future.

[HooptieWagon]

8. Ideally, that might be the best case.

Since the question the OP posed was one side or another, I'd say the lesser of two evils is Assad.
Here are my reasons:
First, if Assad prevails, he will reestablish control over the entire country pretty much ending the war. If Assad is removed, no one rebel group can immediately seize control. Most likely they will fight among themselves for several more years, thus leading to many more civilian deaths.
Second, if Assad prevails, there is a much less chance of chemical weapons, heavy arms (RPGs, AA rockets, etc), tanks, and aircraft falling into the hands of AQ. If AQ-supported rebels win, those weapons are probably soon used against US allies in the region.
Third, Assad is a Russian puppet. They have at least some degree of control over him, thus limiting the potential mayhem he can cause at home and in the region. There would be no such limiting influence on the rebel groups.

Yes, Assad sucks. It would be fantastic to have a moderate secular democratic government emerge in Syria. But IMO, thats not likely to happen. Given that, Assad might be the slightly better of two really bad options.

[MADem]

11. A Yemen solution is the desired outcome of the US government--though you'd never know it reading DU!

Bashir is a war criminal, he doesn't have the confidence or respect of his neighbors in the region, he is hated by a goodly portion of his own population, and leaving him in place will only allow this horrible civil war situation to continue to fester.

The only way Syria can move forward is for al-Assad to go. Pack his ass up, take his murdering relatives and buddies with him, and never darken Syria's doors again.

Again, his leaving does not have to be in the context of regime change.

A VP with a half a brain might find it useful to take counsel with his regional neighbors--he may be able to work a deal with them, and rely a bit less on the grace and favour of Pootie Poot.

[HooptieWagon]

13. I agree, but that wasn't the question in OP.

OP didn't offer a third option, just A or B.
I agree with your proposed solution, and its likely one the Russians would readily buy in to. I'm not sure all the rebel groups would agree to it, but possibly enough to swing the tide towards ending the fighting.
If Obama was facilitating such negotiations, I would be 100% behind him in that regard.

[MADem]

14. That's the problem--Russia won't buy off unless all those rebel groups do.

And of course, they don't want to power share, they want to play the Last Man Standing game. Winner take all.

Obama has been trying to get Syria on that goodfoot for a long time, now... this report is from over a year ago.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/07/us-syria-crisis-russia-idUSBRE85617420120607

[HooptieWagon]

15. Yes, Assad and the rebel groups determined to fight until last man standing.

And its a remote possibility of getting them to negotiating table.
However, that doesn't prevent US and Russia having talks inre Syria. Even if US conceeds Syria as a Russian puppet-state, that is an improvement over current instability, and the status-quo as of several years ago. Obviously the rebels (or most of them) won't agree...but if Russia can force Assad out, replace him with a leader less brutal and open to some reforms, then perhaps enough Syrians are tired of the fighting to give it a go. Everyone involved in the negotiation comes away with a partial victory. Currently, there are no winners....not Russia, not US, not Syrian govt, not Rebels, not Syrian civilian population.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. there are NO two sides. there is assad and a multitude of rebellious forces

some foreign some domestic

there is no other side per se, there are many many others

[deutsey]

5. +1

[cthulu2016]

10. The concept of sides is not limited to two, but I edited to faction

One could say, "I want this rebel faction here to win" and they would be choosing a side, among an array of many options.

I did not mean to imply a binary choice at all, though you are right that sides does to some degree imply two, as in sports (as opposed to geometry). And that is why the not-Assad outcome is so very non-simple. Deposing Assad is, at this point, more a question than an answer.

[JI7]

16. exactly, we saw that in Egypt

[cali]

6. Exactly what's going on.

as for which I prefer, it's like asking what would you prefer, genocide or genocide?

[xchrom]

7. Wait...let me go ask our corporate masters.

Surely they'll know.

[KharmaTrain]

9. Which Side??

...there's a lot of different factions fighting against Assad and one another. This isn't some neat little good guy/bad guy here for a myriad of reasons; most important is that the U.S. has had little real contact with the Syrian government and especially their people. The government is headed by the Alawhite tribe that has dominated the other groups for decades and its their inability to unite that has prolonged the bloodshed. You also have Hezbollah that has a lot to lose if Assad goes down...Syria is their conduit to Lebanon and their bases to attack Israel. There's other factions as well that represents various cities...it's a mess that Assad both created by his repression and now can't control so he's resorted to his stockpile of chemical weapons.

The risk of a U.S. strike here is that it does weaken Assad enough for his regime to be toppled but that opens up a large power vacuum in the country that could accelerate the violence. From all I've read, our options of support here are far from democratic-minded groups...and a truly civil war between groups that have a long history of hatred among one another...

[sibelian]

12. The nice faction. The good guys.

.....



oh.

[Xolodno]

17. There is no "good" faction....

...aside from those who are refugee's and those who couldn't get out and refuse to fight. But no one is going to listen to them.

But the US, European, Chinese and Russian governments have this formula:

Syrian Government = Devil you know.

Rebels = The Devil you don't know.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian government did ask for Assad to step aside. But he refused and told them either he was in control or let the country fall to the west as a client state. That's what I'm thinking happened, so Russia was also put in a bind.

If Assad did step aside, I'm sure the rebels would have been put down by now by "Russian Peacekeepers". But the fact they have not gotten involved militarily says something.