A Mediterranean Battlefield - Syria

[Peter Lemkin]

AMY GOODMAN: For more on Syria, we're joined in Chicago by Bassam Haddad, director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Mason University, co-founder of Jadaliyya. He's author of Business Networks in Syria: The Political Economy of Authoritarian Resilience.
We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Bassam. Can you just respond to both the British vote, the Parliament vote that says no to attacks on Syria, against Cameron's wishes, the prime minister, and yet the U.S. moving forward?
BASSAM HADDAD: Well, absolutely. The British have, you know, made their say, and the Americans, the U.S. government, and France is pushing forward. What I think we should do first, before we actually begin to talk about any of this, is to recognize that this is notno longer about the Syrian regime and whatever atrocities it may have committed and whatever atrocities the rebels may have committed. This is about invading a sovereign country before even the evidence is out, before even the U.N. inspectors are out. There are decisions to already invade, to attack, to launch a strike on Syria, by a country that we should actually check the record of. The United States is not qualified to do what it claims it wants to do, as a result of its own record in violating international law for a very long time and supporting dictators and rogue regimes and the apartheid state of Israel in opposition to all manners of international law. The United States violated international law by attacking and invading a country on false premise, which is Iraq in 2003. And most importantly, the United States, in Iraq, has actually used nerve agent, mustard gas and/or white phosphorus in Fallujah and beyond, left depleted uranium all over the country in Iraq, ruined and destroyed the lives of generations as a result, and now claims that it needs to do this to protect Syrian civilians, which is exactly the opposite of what will happen in any invasion or any strike on Syria, which is not possible to happen in the surgical manner that is being discussed right now.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Bassam Haddad, what do you think would be the repercussions of such a strike, if the United States goes at it, especially if it goes at it with very little support in the international community?
BASSAM HADDAD: Well, the issue here also is the fact that the situation can spin out of control in a very, very quick manner. You have a very strong opposition to this strike, even from the camp that the U.S. is allied with, including Britain, as we have seen. We have international actors, like Russia and China, who are clearly not just against this move, but there havethere has been some movement, some military movements and preparations on the Russian side. You have a regional environment that is also, in many ways, opposed to this, including, of course, the allies of Syria in the region. And we have a possibility of this becoming something much more than what many envision. This is not Libya. Syria has a lot of allies locally. The Syrian terrain is very different than that of Libya. And we're looking at a potential serious set of consequences that actually might not be in favor of anyone, and certainly, in all cases, the Syrian people will be the victims.
And the cynical aspect here is that the United States is not actually looking to change the balance of power in Syria. There is a very marked insistence on a limited strike, supposedly, that actually will end up prolonging this existing civil war, this tragic civil war, and it will not serve the purposes that any ordinary Syrians would like to be served. In fact, on top of this mayhem that has caused the killing of more than 100,000 people, the regime perhaps is the main culprit here, but the rebels also have partaken in a lot of the atrocities that have taken place. On top of all of this, the Syrians right now in Syria are waiting for, again, the United States to strike and basically make Syria the seventh Arab country that the United States strikes in the past couple of decades.
AMY GOODMAN: Bassam, last week Democracy Now! spoke to Razan Zaitouneh in Syria. She is a human rights lawyer who works with the Human Rights Violation Documentation Center. She went to the site of the chemical attack, and she described it.

RAZAN ZAITOUNEH: We started to visit the medical points in Ghouta to where injured were removed, and we couldn't believe our eyes. I haven't seen such death in my whole life. People were lying on the ground in hallways, on roadsides, in hundreds.

There haven't been enough medical staff to treat them. There is not enough medications for more serious cases. They were just to choose to whom they will give the medication, because there is no medication for everybody. Even doctors were crying because they couldn't help the injured people, because the lack of the medication and oxygen.

[Lauren Johnson]

Barry the Great, the constitutional law scholar, is now referring to the Assad regime as violating internaltional ... here it comes ... norms. He pivots away from international law. And, oh wait, who set those norms while abandoning the inconveniet international law? GWB. The unitary executive lives.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Max Hastings is a mainstream military historian, and no friend of the left.

He's just called out Cameron in the right-wing Daily Mail, in a piece which includes the following:

it is naïve to suppose that sarin gas is any worse for its victims than napalm, cluster bombs, Agent Orange defoliant or white phosphorous, widely used by the Western powers in their wars since 1945. All warfare is barbaric and all wars inflict dreadful casualties on civilians. Though President Assad has killed large numbers of non-combatants, so have American drone strikes in Pakistan and the Middle East and so have Syria's insurgents fighting against the regime.

Pretty astonishing truth-telling for MSM.

[Peter Lemkin]

Max Hastings is a mainstream military historian, and no friend of the left.

He's just called out Cameron in the right-wing Daily Mail, in a piece which includes the following:

it is naïve to suppose that sarin gas is any worse for its victims than napalm, cluster bombs, Agent Orange defoliant or white phosphorous, widely used by the Western powers in their wars since 1945. All warfare is barbaric and all wars inflict dreadful casualties on civilians. Though President Assad has killed large numbers of non-combatants, so have American drone strikes in Pakistan and the Middle East and so have Syria's insurgents fighting against the regime.

Pretty astonishing truth-telling for MSM.

Agreed! I don't know and don't know if we'll know WHO used the Sarin-like gas. It may have been Assad - or it may have been others. It was horrible....but so is white phosphorus, cluster-bombs, 'depleted' uranium, agent orange and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - not to mention the fire-bombing of many cities - and so many more one could mention that 'we good guys' have done in the past and are doing currently.

I'm sure everyone hear Kerry's speech. Good salesmanship on the surface, but...where's the proofs?!?! [its secret...sorry, you can't see it....]

[Magda Hassan]

Max Hastings is a mainstream military historian, and no friend of the left.

He's just called out Cameron in the right-wing Daily Mail, in a piece which includes the following:

it is naïve to suppose that sarin gas is any worse for its victims than napalm, cluster bombs, Agent Orange defoliant or white phosphorous, widely used by the Western powers in their wars since 1945. All warfare is barbaric and all wars inflict dreadful casualties on civilians. Though President Assad has killed large numbers of non-combatants, so have American drone strikes in Pakistan and the Middle East and so have Syria's insurgents fighting against the regime.

Pretty astonishing truth-telling for MSM.

Agreed! I don't know and don't know if we'll know WHO used the Sarin-like gas. It may have been Assad - or it may have been others. It was horrible....but so is white phosphorus, cluster-bombs, 'depleted' uranium, agent orange and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - not to mention the fire-bombing of many cities - and so many more one could mention that 'we good guys' have done in the past and are doing currently.

I'm sure everyone hear Kerry's speech. Good salesmanship on the surface, but...where's the proofs?!?! [its secret...sorry, you can't see it....]

It's as certain as can be it was the rebels. Syrian soldiers were amongst the injured as well as many civilians. And one has to ask 'Qui bono' ? Not Assad. And he's been winning back all the territory so far with out using them. I posted this article earlier https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post75749

I see some really sleazy disappointed war proponents out there still pimping for war. Here is one Politico journalist:

Laura Rozen ‏@lrozen 18m You may still have to invest RT @tparsi: Syria strike could bring Raytheon payday - http://POLITICO.com : http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/syria-strike-could-bring-raytheon-payday-96045.html#.UiFgCSn-OZ8.twitter …

Syria strike could bring Raytheon payday

A Syria strike would almost certainly boost orders for Tomahawk missiles. | Reuters




By AUSTIN WRIGHT | 8/29/13 3:48 PM EDT
A U.S. attack on Syria could translate into big bucks for defense giant Raytheon, which makes the Tomahawk cruise missile that's said to be President Barack Obama's weapon of choice.
Reports that the White House is planning an attack to punish Damascus for the use of chemical weapons sent Raytheon's stock price to a 52-week high this week and have reawakened grumblings in Congress that the military doesn't buy enough Tomahawks.
Continue Reading

Comparing Iraq and Syria

Obama: Have not made a decision

"There are many of us who have been concerned for years about maintaining our missile capabilities," said Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
(PHOTOS: Scenes from Syria)
On paper, the Pentagon buys 196 Tomahawk missiles a year, considered the "minimum sustaining rate," or just enough to maintain the supply chain. But the Navy, which did not respond to a request for comment, has had to ramp up production after firing hundreds of Tomahawks during Libya's 2011 civil war.
Accounting for the extra orders, Raytheon has delivered 252 missiles this fiscal year and 361 last fiscal year. And any Tomahawks fired at Syria would almost certainly represent a future increase in orders for the missiles, which can go for about $1 million apiece.
"There's a number that has to be available," said one defense lobbyist. "If they fall below that number, they'll replace them."
Bishop is worried about the fledgling supply chain for solid rocket motors, with guided missile programs bringing a lot of money to his district. Demand for the motors that are used to launch Tomahawk missiles from warships and submarines has fallen in recent years because of cuts to U.S. space and missile programs.
(Also on POLITICO: Media skepticism on Syria)
For Raytheon, the big question is whether a starring role for the Tomahawk in Syria will lead to a permanent increase in orders for the missiles, which have become a go-to weapon in recent conflicts because of their ability to penetrate sophisticated air-defense systems without risking U.S. lives.
"Cruise missiles are heavily used, particularly so often at the start of any conflict, as sort of the way to open the door," Bishop said. "When you reduce funding or diminish demand in many of these programs, you really endanger the capability to maintain this missile capability at all."
In its budget submission for fiscal 2013, the White House requested 196 Tomahawks, for a total program cost of $320 million. It's requesting the same amount next fiscal year, for a cost of $325 million. The increase in price, defense watchers say, is the result of several factors: inflation, rising fuel costs and a shrinking supply chain.
The Navy has also bought extra missiles to replenish its inventories following the civil war in Libya, awarding Raytheon two Tomahawk contracts last year one for 361 missiles and the other for 252, with the work for the second contract expected to be completed by August 2015.
(Also on POLITICO: Behind the Curtain: The ironic war plan)
The increased orders were a boon for Raytheon, which saw an increase in net Tomahawk sales of $32 million during the second quarter of the year, compared with the same period last year, according to its latest filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Any Tomahawks used in Syria would likely represent another increase in future sales, raising an obvious question: Where would a cash-strapped Pentagon get the money to replace Tomahawks used to punish Damascus?
Probably from its base budget, the lobbyist said, or from accounts intended to pay for the war in Afghanistan.
"Otherwise, they'll have to address it in their upcoming budget request," the lobbyist added, saying there's little chance Congress would pass a supplemental spending bill for operations in Syria. Pentagon leaders had said earlier a Syria intervention might force them to request more money from Congress.
The lack of supplemental funding is causing frustration among lawmakers worried the costs of an intervention in Syria could exacerbate the Pentagon's fiscal woes. "Our military has no money left," said Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
On Wednesday, Inhofe announced he's opposed to military operations in Syria a major setback for the Obama administration as it works to drum up support among key members of Congress for a response to the reported use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar Assad.
"We can't simply launch a few missiles and hope for the best," Inhofe said.
Regardless, the administration appears to be moving forward with plans to attack Syria as early as Thursday. The Navy has four guided-missile destroyers in the Mediterranean, with a fifth on the way, each armed with Tomahawks.
The missiles, which can be launched from both surface warships and submarines, have a range of more than 1,000 nautical miles. The latest version, Block IV, has a satellite link that allows it to loiter over the battlefield as it awaits target instructions.
And in Washington, they're quickly becoming a symbol for defense advocates worried that cuts in military spending will leave the country ill-prepared for future conflicts.
"It's not like there are huge stockpiles of Tomahawks lying around in a warehouse somewhere," said a congressional defense source, who asked not to be identified in order to discuss the issue candidly.
"We have one hot production line that operates at a steady, but modest, capacity out in Arizona," the source said. "When we use 50, 100, 150 of these it can create near-to-medium-term shortfalls that may cascade and affect our conventional strike capacity in other theaters."
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/sy...Z8.twitter

The One Graph That Sums Up Why We're Going to War With Syria

• Chris Miles
  
• 5 hours ago
  

The One Graph That Sums Up Why We're Going to War With Syria

If ever there was a sign of the military industrial complex in America, this graph is it.
Reports that the United States is very near to launching an attack against Syria to punish Damascus for the use of chemical weapons sent Raytheon's stock price to a 52-week high this week.
Who is Raytheon? The manufacturer of the BGM-109, more commonly known as the Tomahawk missile, the weapon of choice of the Obama administration in any strike against Syria.
Raytheon stock has surged over the past two months, coinciding with the biggest U.S. military build-up America has mounted since it launched an assault against Libya in 2011.
Raytheon is a Cambridge, Mass.,-based American defense contractor with total employment of 72,400 people. It is the world's largest manufacturer of guided missiles and produces such widely used weapons as the AIM-7 Sparrow missile, the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile and the BGM-109 Tomahawk. The company is also responsible for the Air Warfare Simulation program used by the Air Force. According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2010, the company had nearly $23 billion in arms sales, more than 90% of its total revenue for the year.


The Pentagon buys 196 Tomahawk missiles a year, considered the "minimum sustaining rate" for the U.S. military's arsenal. And there are some key members of Congress who think more should be spent on these weapons.
"There are many of us who have been concerned for years about maintaining our missile capabilities," said Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, to Politico.
Raytheon has delivered 252 missiles this fiscal year and 361 last fiscal year. War with Syria means that there would likely be a future increase in orders for the missiles, which can go for about $1 million a pop. In the 2011 U.S. military adventure into Libya, 124 Tomahawk missiles were fired by U.S. and UK ships against Libyan targets. The Libya campaign would give a comparable bar on how many Tomahawk missiles will be used in a Syrian campaign.
Supply and demand, baby.
The BGM-109 has been used in each of America's official conflicts in the last 22 years. Using wings and a flight system, cruise missiles like the Tomahawk are designed to carry a heavy warhead at subsonic speeds over a significant distance. Originally developed by General Dynamics in the 70s, the 3,500 lb. 20 foot long Tomahawk missile is now manufactured by Raytheon, a large U.S. defense contractor. Each unit can cost anywhere from the mid-$500,000s to almost $1.5 million, depending on the chosen configuration, payload, and booster deployment. The missile's modular system allows it to carry a conventional or nuclear payload if needed.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/61599/...with-syria

[Peter Lemkin]

Hey, how much do one of those Tomahawk missiles cost? I could use one to settle a score with a landlord who didn't give me back my deposit! There is no real economy left in the USA except war/death machinery and the fast-food and big-box slave-labor.

[Peter Lemkin]

Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria
TEHRAN (FNA)- A grim "urgent action memorandum" issued yesterday from the office of President Putin to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation has ordered a "massive military strike" against Saudi Arabia in the event that the West attacks Syria, media reports said.
"According to Kremlin sources familiar with this extraordinary "war order," Putin became "enraged" after his early August meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan who warned that if Russia did not accept the defeat of Syria, Saudi Arabia would unleash Chechen terrorists under their control to cause mass death and chaos during the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held 7-23 February 2014 in Sochi, Russia," EU Times said quoting a report from whatdoesitmean.com.
Lebanese newspaper As-Safir confirmed this amazing threat against Russia saying that Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia's naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia's Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord by stating, "I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us."
Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. "These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria's political future."
London's The Telegraph News Service further reported today that Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia's gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad government in Syria, an offer Putin replied to by saying "Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters" [Putin said referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier], and which Prince Bandar in turn warned that there can be "no escape from the military option" if Russia declines the olive branch.
Critical to note, and as whatdoesitmean had previously reported on in its 28 January 2013 report "Obama Plan For World War III Stuns Russia," the Federal Security Services (FSB) confirmed the validity of the released hacked emails of the British based defence company, Britam Defence that stunningly warned the Obama regime was preparing to unleash a series of attacks against both Syria and Iran in a move Russian intelligence experts warned could very well cause World War III.
According to this FSB report, Britam Defence, one of the largest private mercenary forces in the world, was the target of a "massive hack" of its computer files by an "unknown state sponsored entity" this past January who then released a number of critical emails between its top two executives, founder Philip Doughty and his Business Development Director David Goulding.
The two most concerning emails between Doughty and Goulding, this report says, states that the Obama regime has approved a "false flag" attack in Syria using chemical weapons, and that Britam has been approved to participate in the West's warn on Iran, and as we can read:
Email 1: Phil, We've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington. We'll have to deliver a CW (chemical weapon) to Homs (Syria), a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion? Kind regards David
Email 2: Phil, Please see attached details of preparatory measures concerning the Iranian issue. Participation of Britam in the operation is confirmed by the Saudis.
With the events now spiraling out of control in Syria, and London's Independent News Service now reporting that Prince Bandar is "pushing for war," Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich further warned the West today by stating, "Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa."
Heedless of Russian warnings which have fallen on deaf ears, however, British Prime Minister David Cameron this morning recalled the British Parliament to vote on attacking Syria as the Obama regime abruptly cancelled their meeting with Russia scheduled for tomorrow on finding a path to peace for Syria, and the West begins its plans to attack the Syrian nation "within days."
As Syria itself has warned that should it be attacked by the West there will be "global chaos," the Western peoples themselves have not been told of the fact that on 17 May 2013, Putin ordered Russian military forces to "immediately move" from Local War to Regional War operational status and to be "fully prepared" to expand to Large-Scale War should either the US or EU enter into the Syrian Civil War, a situation they are still in at this very hour.
With Putin's previous order, and as whatdoesitmean had reported on in its 17 May report "Russia Issues "All-Out War" Alert Over Syria," and now combined with his new ordering of massive retaliatory strikes against Saudi Arabia, any attack on Syria is viewed by Russia as being an attack on itself.
And as whatdoesitmean had previously explained in great detail, the fight over Syria, being led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and their lap-dog Western allies, has but one single objective: To break Russia's hold on the European Union natural gas market which a pipeline through Syria would accomplish, and as reported by London's Financial Times News Service this past June:
"The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bln over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.
The cost of Qatar's intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.
Qatar [also] has proposed a gas pipeline from the Persian Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG)."
And in what is, perhaps, the most unimaginable cause to start World War III over Syria was noted by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich who said this past week, "We're getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature," he stressed. "In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action."
For the West to have so sloppily engineered yet another "false flag" attack to justify a war where they posted the videos of this so-called chemical weapons attack a full day before it was said to occur is the height of arrogance and disdain, but which their sleep-walking citizens, yet again, will fall for as they have done so many times in the past.

[Oh boy!...this could go 'nuclear' - I love fireworks!]

[Magda Hassan]

Maybe things did not go so well in that meeting with Bush Bandar.

[Magda Hassan]

Don't Celebrate Yet

by craig on August 30, 2013 8:47 am in Uncategorized
There is no obvious reason why the Western powers should care whether it was the friends or the family of Mohammed which took over the leadership of his movement upon his death. However there is plainly an agenda led by the USA to support the Sunnis in their spiralling regional conflict with the Shia.
This is not hard to rationalise. The ultra wealthy members of the Gulf regimes continue to act as the West's proxies in the region and provide harbour to its neo-imperialist armed forces, while at the same time maintaining themselves a obscurantist version of Islam which would have horrified Mohammed and breaks virtually every precept of the Koran, particularly as regards treatment of women and of minority religions within their territory.
In Bahrain the large Shia majority is brutally repressed with active western collusion; in Saudi Arabia the Shia minority in the East is degraded. Iran is the great Shia bogey, and the West is so determined to maintain it as "the enemy" that they refuse the most basic diplomatic openings. The UK turned down an invitation to be represented at the inauguration of a new more moderate President and hold initial conversations. Meanwhile, Shia groups have mustered the only effective military resistance to Israeli aggression, and in Syria a Shia friendly regime is under intense pressure from the West and its Gulf allies. Peculiarly, in Iraq Western invasion resulted in the installation of a Shia regime, but that was only one of the entirely unforeseen consequences of that most stupid of invasions, and the Western response is to try to split up the country and fuel multiple insurgencies.
Meantime the CIA have now got a controlled and pro-Israeli military dictatorship back in power in Egypt, while the extraordinary complicity of the mainstream media and entire political class in the United States has never been more evident than in the acceptance that the military coup will not be designated a military coup. The manipulation of Western public opinion in the Syrian chemical weapons episode has, rarely, been too blatant to work. But events in Turkey and Egypt have shown that western public opinion is easily manipulated by the "secularist" angle. No matter how ugly political forces are and in Turkey the Kemalists are very ugly call them "secularist" and hide the rest, and you can attempt to topple elected governments in their favour with the full throated support of the media cheerleaders.
Last night's vote in the Commons is welcome, but a blip. It owes more to political tribalism than to principle. Miliband and New Labour did not oppose military action, they merely wanted to be seen to be dictating the terms. As neither Tories nor Labour were prepared to accept the other's terms for military action, the anti war minority could combine with the tribalists of each to make sure everything got defeated. Good but fortuitous.
The media are still in full war cry. Ashdown has never been so ashamed, apparently. He is not ashamed by extraordinary rendition and our torturing people. He is not ashamed of our responsibility for the death of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, with 2,000 people a day still meeting terrible deaths. He is ashamed that we don't respond to the deaths of children by chemical weapons, we don't really know at whose hands, by blasting to pieces a lot more children. Well, Paddy, you are a merciless fool who thinks a spiral of death is the answer, and I have never been more ashamed that I was for most of my adult life a member of the Liberal Democrats.
Ashdown did say bitterly that there was now no point in having such large armed forces. Hallelujah! The danger to the establishment that people might realise that spending more on weapons systems than on hospitals is a poor choice, is one reason this is not over. Much is at stake for the security state. Expect a mounting barrage of propaganda on the need for action in Syria. This is just the start.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2...um=twitter

[Magda Hassan]

What Awaits the United States in Syria

by Fred H. Lawson

Allegations that Syrian government troops used chemical weapons against civilians outside Damascus on 21 August 2013 come at a time when the country's civil war has entered a particularly dangerous phase. Opposition forces that advocate overtly religious platforms couched in virulently sectarian rhetoric have shouldered aside the few non-sectarian guerrilla formations and emerged as the vanguard of the anti-regime coalition on the ground. Skirmishes between such groupings and the security services, pro-regime thugs and regular armed forces (STR) have resulted in, or set the stage for, targeted killings of civilians of one sectarian affiliation or another, most often of Sunnis by the STR and 'Alawis and other Shi'is by Islamist radicals. The rising incidence of brutal collective punishment has prompted both sides to express a thirst for vengence that borders on reciprocal calls for ethnic cleansing.
In November 2012, a new umbrella organization of opposition movements took shape, calling itself the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. The NCSROF supplanted the old Syrian National Council (SNC), which critics charged had been dominated from the outset by the Muslim Brothers. Ironically, the NCSROF immediately elected as its head a prominent representative of the Muslim Brothers, Ahmad Mu'azz al-Khatib. The SNC had been careful to choose as its successive leading figures a secularist, Paris-based academic and a Kurdish activist who was a long-time resident of social-democratic Sweden. A modest broadening of the base of the opposition's flagship organization therefore accompanied a pronounced assertion of the Muslim Brothers's grip over its agenda and decision-making process.
Nevertheless, the NCSROF (like the SNC before it) enjoyed few if any connections to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the various Islamic formations fighting inside Syria. Relations between the external leadership and the FSA proved rocky from the beginning. SNC leaders repeatedly ordered the FSA to subordinate itself to the civilian wing of the opposition, while FSA commanders insisted that they needed to retain total freedom of action in order to prosecute the revolt effectively. When the SNC at last set up a military structure of its own, the FSA not only refused to merge with it but even took steps to undercut the new command's efforts to co-ordinate operations among the autonomous militias that owed their primary allegiance to the internal leadership of the uprising, the Local Co-ordinating Committees. Attempts by the NCSROF to set up a unified command apparatus proved equally unsuccessful. An initial effort to impose orderliness on the FSA in December 2012 quickly fizzled out.
Persistent rivalries among key components of the NCSROF paralyzed the organization and energized radical Islamist formations that have seized control of the battlefield. Primary among these is the Assistance Front for the People of Syria (most often referred to as the al-Nusrah Front), which expresses particular hostility toward members of the 'Alawi community and tends to refer to the United States and Israel as "enemies of Islam." But this militia is only one of several radical groups that gained strength during the winter of 2012-13. The Free Syria Brigades, whose adherents call for the replacement of the secularist Ba'th Party-led order with an "Islamic" system of government, constitutes a major actor in the countryside northwest of Homs. Just as prominent in rural areas around Idlib and Jisr al-Shughur is the Hawks of Syria, which appears to be more concerned with overthrowing the country's current political elite than it is with eradicating 'Alawis per se. Elements of the Hawks of Syria have been especially ruthless in their treatment of captured soldiers and party functionaries. Horrific videos of the executions of unarmed prisoners get released sporadically by the militia as evidence of its commitment to punish all defenders of the Ba'thi regime.
Despite their success in the field, the radical Islamists steadily alienated large segments of the Syrian public during the first half of 2013. In the first place, Islamist formations did not hesitate to engage in fights with other opposition forces. On 9 January 2013, members of the Assistance Front ambushed and killed the commander of the FSA's al-Faruq Brigade in the town of Sarmada. The attack most probably occurred as retaliation against the FSA for the September 2012 assassination of the Islamist leader Firas al-Absi, and took place in the context of reports that the Assistance Front was organizing propular protests against the FSA in northern districts that had fallen out of government control. At the same time, the Assistance Front started to challenge Aleppo's pre-eminent Islamist militia, the Unity Brigade, and put sustained pressure on other autonomous bands of fighters to obey orders issued by the Front's local commanders.
Second, radical Islamist formations generated widespread outrage by brazenly assaulting Syria's minority communities. Human Rights Watch reported in January 2013 that one unit of Islamist militants had destroyed meetinghouses used by devout Shi'is to commemorate the martyrdom of al-Imam Husain, and that other units had raided and looted Christian churches across Latakia province. In May a group of radical Islamists desecrated the tomb of Hujr bin 'Adai, a companion of the Prophet particularly revered by Shi'is, and stole his remains. Syria's mainstream Sunnis found themselves subject to the wrath of the radicals as well. The Guardian reported on 17 January that members of the Assistance Front had vandalized a number of tombs around the northern town of A'zaz, on the grounds that the monuments were "too pretentious for Islamic traditions."
In the face of such assaults, Syria's Kurdish community at last mobilized to protect itself. The great majority of Syrian Kurds had adopted a neutral posture during the early months of the uprising, so the first rounds of the civil war by-passed the region around al-Hasakah and al-Qamishli. At the end of 2011, however, the authorities in Damascus tolerated, and perhaps even encouraged, the rise of a radical Kurdish organization throughout the northeastern provinces. The Democratic Union Party (PYD), which represents the present incarnation of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), subsequently took charge of a broad zone stretching from the town of Ras al-'Ain on the Euphrates River to the Iraqi border. Clashes between the armed wing of the PYD, known as the Popular Protection Units (YPG), and Islamist fighters became more frequent and intense during the late winter and spring of 2013. At the same time, a rival Kurdish militia, the West Kurdistan People's Defense Forces, skirmished repeatedly against Islamist units along the border with Turkey.
Meanwhile, armed tribespeople affiliated with the Jazirah and Euphrates Front to Liberate Syria (JEF), operating separately from the FSA, launched a renewed offensive against Islamist and Kurdish militants in the eastern provinces of al-Raqqah and al-Hasakah. The four-way struggle among the JEF, FSA, YPG and radical Islamists prompted militia units of the first three of these movements to grab important oil-producing facilities between al-Raqqah and Dair al-Zur in early March. In conjunction with the race to capture the oil fields, FSA brigades and Islamist formations moved into the adjacent city of al-Raqqah. Districts of the city that fell into the hands of the Assistance Front were forced to follow particularly strict notions of public piety.
It was under these circumstances that the STR in June 2013 drove opposition fighters out of the strategically-situated town of al-Qusair on the Lebanese border, ushering in the current phase of the war. Government troops immediately advanced on the opposition strongholds of al-Rastan and Talbisah outside Homs, and made preparations for a large-scale offensive against rebel positions around Aleppo. Islamist commanders responded by threatening to make greater use of suicide bombings, particularly against concentrations of 'Alawi soldiers and civilians; on 19 June a massive explosion rocked a military facility in the largely 'Alawi southern suburbs of Latakia. FSA units simultaneously attacked a pair of Shi'i villages on the outskirts of Aleppo, whose residents appealed to the Lebanese Shi'i movement the Party of God (Hizbullah) for support.
In a move dripping with sectarian symbolism, the STR then turned its attention to opposition enclaves encircling the shrine of al-Sayyidah Zainab on the edge of Damascus, a site venerated by Shi'is. Government forces were joined in the operation by members of the pro-regime Abu Fadl al-Abbas militia, whose ranks include large numbers of Iraqi Shi'is. At the same time, a radical Islamist formation sliced through the Shi'i village of Hatla outside the eastern city of Dair al-Zur, killing some five dozen of its inhabitants and torching the local mosque; members of the militia then posted a video on YouTube in which they called on Sunnis to "massacre" Shi'is wherever they might be found.
Skirmishing between radical Islamists and the Kurdish YPG escalated at the end of June. Islamist fighters ambushed YPG cadres outside 'Amudah, prompting PYD officials to impose a curfew on the town. This action elicited criticism from representatives of the NCSROF, who disputed the PYD's right to issue regulations governing "liberated" territory. By mid-July, the PYD was calling for the creation of a unified Kurdish administration for opposition-held districts in the northeastern provinces, whose officials would be elected directly by the local population. At the same time, YPG units resumed the campaign against the Assistance Front at Ras al-'Ain, and succeeded in pushing its fighters out of the town. The victory at Ras al-'Ain encouraged YPG commanders to strike Islamist positions around the oil fields. By mid-July the fighting had spread to Tal Abyad in the northern marches of al-Raqqah province. FSA commanders tended to see such clashes as evidence that the YPG was actively collaborating with the regime, heightening mistrust and animosity between the two forces.
Kurdish efforts to push the Assistance Front out of the northeast encouraged local residents to mobilize against radical Islamist formations in neighboring areas. Anti-Islamist protests erupted in Minbij and three surrounding towns in Aleppo province on 10 July, some of which were reported to have involved violence. A day later, a high-ranking FSA commander was killed by fighters of the Assistance Front in a firefight at a checkpoint outside Latakia. Cadres of the Front opened fire on anti-Islamist protesters in the town of al-Dan'a on the Turkish border, then disarmed the local FSA battalion and executed its commander. By early August, competing factions inside the Assistance Front were reportered to be at loggerheads with one another over the movement's immediate objectives.
Growing rivalry among radical Islamist forces set the stage for a hectic assault against predominantly 'Alawi villages outside Latakia. The attack included elements of the Assistance Front, the Free Syrian Brigades, the Hawks of Syria and at least three other militias, one of which consisted of Libyan veterans of the war that ousted Muammar al-Qaddafi. A leader of the Free Syrian Brigades, Shaikh Anas 'Airut, told reporters that the goal of the operation was to "drive ['Alawis] out of their homes like they drove us out. They have to feel pain like we feel pain." More than 200 village residents were captured during the initial days of the campaign, many of whom were summarily executed. Among those killed was a prominent 'Alawi religious scholar, Shaikh Badr al-Ghazzal.
Civil rights activists inside Syria, who rally around the National Co-ordinating Committee of the Forces for Democratic Change (NCCFDC), condemned the slaughter that resulted from the offensive around Latakia. Some NCCFDC members expressed the view that the perpetrators of the killings were not Syrians, but rather outside agitators intent on stirring up regional hatreds. The views of the inside opposition clashed with that of the head of the FSA's military command, General Salim Idris, who made a quick tour of the captured villages and took responsbility for co-ordinating the operations of the forces involved.
Government troops retook almost all of the villages around Latakia by the third week of August, but the scale of the fighting demonstrated the increasing potency of the weaponry deployed by opposition forces. Islamist formations were reported to have bombarded the Latakia countryside with captured GRAD surface-to-surface missile batteries, and videos posted on-line showed militants operating Soviet-built T-54 and T-62 tanks outside Aleppo. Anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets supplied by Saudi Arabia and Qatar made more frequent appearances on the battlefield as well.
In the northeast, the PYD steadily consolidated its control over large bands of territory. Planning for the creation of a regional Kurdish administration proceeded, and overtures were made to the Turkoman and Christian minorities to encourage them to accept such an arrangement. PYD supporters lobbied Kurdish officials in northern Iraq to restrict the flow of refugees out of Syria, so that enough residents would remain in the country to provide a firm foundation for an administrative apparatus. Fighting between Kurdish militants and radical Islamists nevertheless remained fierce, as YPG units resorted to mortar barrages to dislodge Islamist formations entrenched outside Ras al-'Ain and along the Iraqi border. Assistance Front fighters retaliated by kidnapping Kurds in outlying villages. A visiting reporter from al-Jazeera remarked that YPG personnel at highway checkpoints tended to sport buttons bearing the picture of Abdullah Ocalan of the PKK.
It is into this maelstrom that the United States is considering direct military intervention in retaliation for the deaths by chemical agents of hundreds of residents of the Damascus's suburbs of Jobar, Zamalka, 'Ain Tarmah and Mu'adamiyyah. An earlier use of the nerve gas sarin that killed two dozen people at Khan al-Assal in Aleppo province had been traced by Russian intelligence agencies to an obscure radical Islamist militia, which built a crude missile to deliver the toxin. US officials told Foreign Policy magazine that the incidence of suspected chemical attacks fell off dramatically in the aftermath of the government's capture of al-Qusair in June 2013.
Why the Syrian authorities would resort to chemical weapons at a time when the government armed forces are gaining momentum on all fronts represents a crucial puzzle. Close observers of local affairs have speculated that the order to fire rockets with chemical warheads against civilian targets may have come from President Bashar al-Asad's brother, Mahir al-Asad, who commands both the powerful Fourth Armoured Division and the elite Republican Guard. One can imagine that Mahir might have unleashed a chemical attack in order to make it impossible for his brother to engage in serious negotiations with the opposition, now that the regime has gained a significant advantage on the battlefield. It is possible that the president has at last shown his true colours, and can be expected to inflict collective punishment on those who supported the opposition if the uprising falters. Perhaps the sustained missile barrage carried out by the regular armed forces inadvertently detonated caches of chemical agents that had been stored by the government, the rebels or both.
What is certain is that foreign military intervention will have no unambiguous allies on the ground, as it did in Libya, and no well-defined territories to secure. Tactical co-ordination with Turkey will most likely run into problems in the northeastern provinces, where tensions between Ankara and the PYD simmer just below the surface. The steadily increasing sectarianization of the civil war threatens to drag not only Hizbullah but also Iraqi Shi'is into the conflict to protect their co-religionists. And if outside intervention actually does manage to destabilize the Ba'thi regime, who knows what additional horrors might be inflicted upon vulnerable communities all across Syria?
Fred H. Lawson is professor of government at Mills College. He is contributing editor of Middle East Report, and the author of, among other books, Global Security WatchSyria (2013) and Why Syria Goes to War (1996).http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/...s_in_syria