Here we go again, we already have seen military force used in Libya to remove Qaddafi and now are starting to hear rumblings, as in the following post, that the same strategies will be used against Assad. Is this a "wag the dog" event or is it for real? We believe the latter.
Our belief is that based on experience and the success in Libya, this Administration will use similar tactics and hope for a successful outcome. Will it be the same? Bravado would say so (and the President has plenty of that) but Assad is not likely to go quietly. If he does, where he might go is another question. Who would take him? He has plenty of money but he has other baggage that might end up destabilizing his host country. Watch to see if his family (wife and kids) leaves the country, that will be an indicator of the severity of the situation.
As in Libya and Egypt, what might follow the end of the Assad era, could be drastically worse. Will the rebels who come to power be more or less tyrannical than Assad? That question is still to be answered, however, we hold out little hope for a moderate pro-American reformer to be able to consolidate power and make Syria a model for the rest of the region. Our guess is that the situation will deteriorate significantly and the murders that have already occurred will be but a footnote to the greater calamity that is to come.
Our rationale for a human rights tragedy is that the minority (Alawites) that Assad represents will become targets if he is overthrown, reposed or killed. They have been in the inner circle since the senior Assad took control of Syria in 1971. There is a generous amount of animosity against this now powerful minority. If the protection of the state is removed, there could be an outright slaughter.
Has the White House factored this into its thought process? We sure do hope so. If not, the blood of those killed will be on our hands if the United States, France and England are instrumental in the forced removal of Assad.
Yes, we know that it sounds like we are in favor of keeping Assad in place even though he has killed many of his countrymen and in some ways that would be a correct assumption. On the other hand, he is a violent man who should be removed. At least we knew what we had with Mubarak and Qaddafi and now with Assad, what follows could be significantly worse. The old saying goes "you might not like what you wish for."
Conservative Tom
US President Barack Obama has ordered the US Navy and Air Force to accelerate preparations for a limited air offensive against the Assad regime and the imposition of no-fly zones over Syria, DEBKAfile reports. Their mission will be to knock out Assad’s central regime and military command centers so as to shake regime stability and restrict Syrian army and air force activity for subduing rebel action and wreaking violence on civilian populations.
DEBKAfile’s sources disclose that the US President decided on this step after hearing Russian officials stating repeatedly that “Moscow would support the departure of President Bashar al-Assad if Syrians agreed to it.” This position was interpreted as opening up two paths of action:
1. To go for Assad’s removal by stepping up arms supplies to the rebels and organizing their forces as a professional force able to take on the military units loyal to Assad. This process was already in evidence Friday, June 8, when for the first time a Syrian Free Army (which numbers some 600 men under arms) attacked a Syrian army battalion in Damascus. One of its targets was a bus carrying Russian specialists.
2. To select a group of high army officers who, under the pressure of the limited air offensive, would be ready to ease Assad out of power or stage a military coup to force him and his family to accept exile.
The US operation would be modulated according to the way political and military events unfolded.
Washington is not sure how Moscow would react aside from sharp condemnations or whether Russia would accept a process of regime change in Damascus and its replacement by military rule.
Our belief is that based on experience and the success in Libya, this Administration will use similar tactics and hope for a successful outcome. Will it be the same? Bravado would say so (and the President has plenty of that) but Assad is not likely to go quietly. If he does, where he might go is another question. Who would take him? He has plenty of money but he has other baggage that might end up destabilizing his host country. Watch to see if his family (wife and kids) leaves the country, that will be an indicator of the severity of the situation.
As in Libya and Egypt, what might follow the end of the Assad era, could be drastically worse. Will the rebels who come to power be more or less tyrannical than Assad? That question is still to be answered, however, we hold out little hope for a moderate pro-American reformer to be able to consolidate power and make Syria a model for the rest of the region. Our guess is that the situation will deteriorate significantly and the murders that have already occurred will be but a footnote to the greater calamity that is to come.
Our rationale for a human rights tragedy is that the minority (Alawites) that Assad represents will become targets if he is overthrown, reposed or killed. They have been in the inner circle since the senior Assad took control of Syria in 1971. There is a generous amount of animosity against this now powerful minority. If the protection of the state is removed, there could be an outright slaughter.
Has the White House factored this into its thought process? We sure do hope so. If not, the blood of those killed will be on our hands if the United States, France and England are instrumental in the forced removal of Assad.
Yes, we know that it sounds like we are in favor of keeping Assad in place even though he has killed many of his countrymen and in some ways that would be a correct assumption. On the other hand, he is a violent man who should be removed. At least we knew what we had with Mubarak and Qaddafi and now with Assad, what follows could be significantly worse. The old saying goes "you might not like what you wish for."
Conservative Tom
Obama speeds up limited air strike, no-fly zones preparations for Syria
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 11, 2012, 9:29 AM (GMT+02:00)
DEBKAfile’s sources disclose that the US President decided on this step after hearing Russian officials stating repeatedly that “Moscow would support the departure of President Bashar al-Assad if Syrians agreed to it.” This position was interpreted as opening up two paths of action:
1. To go for Assad’s removal by stepping up arms supplies to the rebels and organizing their forces as a professional force able to take on the military units loyal to Assad. This process was already in evidence Friday, June 8, when for the first time a Syrian Free Army (which numbers some 600 men under arms) attacked a Syrian army battalion in Damascus. One of its targets was a bus carrying Russian specialists.
2. To select a group of high army officers who, under the pressure of the limited air offensive, would be ready to ease Assad out of power or stage a military coup to force him and his family to accept exile.
The US operation would be modulated according to the way political and military events unfolded.
Washington is not sure how Moscow would react aside from sharp condemnations or whether Russia would accept a process of regime change in Damascus and its replacement by military rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.