 |
| Ridiculously Photogenic Syrian Rebel: A Weapon of Mass Seduction |
Engulfed within a violent civil war, Syria has been the scene of massive instability for the past 18 months. This instability has allowed for various terrorist organizations to seep into the country and set up operations unopposed (*cough**cough*Al-Qeada Iraq*cough**cough*). Despite the looming fiscal cliff, and illogical partisan stratification, Washington can not afford to ignore the situation developing within Syria.
This potential for the country to become another Afghanistan post-Assad is becoming more and more likely as each day passes, due to the frightening amount of units within the Free Syrian Army that have violently different ideologies of governance. This glue of, 'I'm only allies with this fellow FSA unit because we have a common goal' does not necessarily set the foundation for a stable government once the last remnants of the Syrian Army, Navy, and Air Force surrender.
Even worse, the U.N. recently came out and said that the conflict was, "Overtly sectarian" Which, in many respects, is a bit of an understatement. The levels of violence between religious sects has skyrocketed to the levels similar to Iraq during 2006-07.
Moreover, this sectarian violence has been spilling over into neighboring country, Lebanon. Sparking several deadly clashes between religious factions killing dozens of people. And Iraq is viewing the conflict with suspicion, fearing that violence will spill over into their borders, thrusting them once again into the terrible domestic violence that they faced during the Surge in 2006 and 2007.
History as an example
Contrary to popular belief, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan wasn't an organization filled with people who loved and agree'd with each other. It was a loose conglomerate of different groups that hated one another's guts and had vastly different plans for how Afghanistan should have been ruled after the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan fell.
Their alliance quickly fell apart within a year of the fall of the D.R.A., again thrusting the country into Civil War. As Charlie Wilson and co. popped champaign bottles and cheered that the Soviet Union fell, the environment that led to the rise of the Taliban was slowly developing.
If allowed to fester, these unmediated disagreements could lead to the creation of a second, longer civil war that see's the rise of a Taliban like group rise in Syria. Allowing for terrorist organizations to take root and grow, and find the perfect source of recruitment in the dystopic state. Instability is the fuel for the terrorist's fire, and civil wars are never filled with anything less than copious amounts of instability.
An Overview of the Situation Developing Within Syria
 |
| I hope I don't need to tell you that this is Syria, given that the country has 'Syria' in big, bold letters |
Brutally, the Syrian military began to forcefully shut down these protests with deadly proficientcy. Soon, bodies and blood caked the streets of cities and towns within Syria. Military units created a virtual siege of major cities, and started to gun down protesting civilians on sight.
After several moths of besiegement, protesters slowly turned into an armed insurgency, composed of civilians, foreign fighters, and Syrian defects. Since then, the Free Syrian Army has gone from an unorganized group of rebels that shot at each other for religious reasons, to an organized group of rebels who have agree'd to band together over the common enemy (and what happens when that common enemy falls...?)
Currently, countries in the Gulf Cooperative Community (G.C.C.), Turkey, and Western countries have been giving everything from monetary support, to advisement, to weapons. Moreover, NATO pressure on Syria has spiked recently.
After the Syrian military shot down the Turkish jet in May, Turkey has been campaigning for a NATO presence to protect its borders. Pleas which have recently been meet by the deployment of Patriot Missile Systems from Germany, United States, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, Turkey is playing host to a number of Syrian refugees and rebel fighters, giving them training and weaponry for their fight against Assad.
Currently, countries in the Gulf Cooperative Community (G.C.C.), Turkey, and Western countries have been giving everything from monetary support, to advisement, to weapons. Moreover, NATO pressure on Syria has spiked recently.
After the Syrian military shot down the Turkish jet in May, Turkey has been campaigning for a NATO presence to protect its borders. Pleas which have recently been meet by the deployment of Patriot Missile Systems from Germany, United States, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, Turkey is playing host to a number of Syrian refugees and rebel fighters, giving them training and weaponry for their fight against Assad.
 |
| German Patriot Missile Systems |
Worrisome, though, is the sheer amount of deadly weaponry that is present in the hands of the dying regime. Within the past few weeks, the Syrian military has prepped chemical weaponry to be used through aerial and missile platforms, while Scud missiles have been landing in Aleppo, a city near the turkish border.
Intelligence analysts estimate that Assad owns roughly 400 short and medium ranged ballistic missiles, all of which can obviously been used for chemical and biological warfare.
This brings up two questions: First, if NATO has intelligence that government forces are about to use chemical weapons on the Syrian populace, would the Patriot batteries stationed in Turkey attempt to shoot them down? Second, if this attack was massive (like, 120 missiles), would the NATO task force be able to neutralize the threat?
In regards to the latter of the two, there have already been concerns raised about the training of the Dutch troops manning the Patriot systems. According to a military trade union in the Netherlands, roughly 20% of the soldiers being deployed have no formal training in the system.
However, there have been no concerns raised about the efficiency of the German and U.S. forces being deployed, reaffirming the task force's ability to defend the Turkish border (along with the Syrian people themselves, hopefully).
Western Response
Intelligence analysts estimate that Assad owns roughly 400 short and medium ranged ballistic missiles, all of which can obviously been used for chemical and biological warfare.
This brings up two questions: First, if NATO has intelligence that government forces are about to use chemical weapons on the Syrian populace, would the Patriot batteries stationed in Turkey attempt to shoot them down? Second, if this attack was massive (like, 120 missiles), would the NATO task force be able to neutralize the threat?
In regards to the latter of the two, there have already been concerns raised about the training of the Dutch troops manning the Patriot systems. According to a military trade union in the Netherlands, roughly 20% of the soldiers being deployed have no formal training in the system.
However, there have been no concerns raised about the efficiency of the German and U.S. forces being deployed, reaffirming the task force's ability to defend the Turkish border (along with the Syrian people themselves, hopefully).
 |
| A good info graphic on how the Patriot missile system works |
Western Response
1. Western nations should find a group or groups that would best represent their interests, and begin arming them.
The moment Assad's dead body is paraded through the street of Damascus, is the moment a violent arms race begins for the establishment of a proxy dominance of Syria's new political system. The four primary belligerents in this new war will undoubtably be the United States and Israel, Russia, Iran, and the Gulf Cooperative Community.
The geopolitical significance of Syria is irrefutable. For Russia, it's viewed as an important forward operating base to launch it's naval presence into the Mediteranean and beyond. With various international restrictions put in place on the Turkish Straits, the Black Sea fleet is restricted in terms of ability to project power. Making Tartus an important sea base for the Russian Navy in terms of force projection and remaining relevant within the global sphere.
For Iran, Syria is a crucial part of it's plan to establish a regional hegemony and an important ally. Moreover, the Iranians use it as a counter weight to Israeli influence and a cover for their plethora of terrorist operations. Further, with a Naval blockade put in place on Gaza, Syria's coastline offers a perfect route by which arms can come in and be shipped off to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations working for Tehran. It's also important to realize the asymmetrical significance of Syria in relation to Iranian grand strategy.
Syria is practically a stones-throw away from the European theater, and with its mass missile supply in reserve, it has the ability to wreck havoc on American and allied units operating in the Med. Sea and Europe. Utilized correctly, the Syrian missile force could very possibly inflict grave damage to NATO forces operating within the European hemisphere.
The collapse of the Syrian regime offers an opportunity to counter an Iranian power surge within the Arab world. If the US-Israeli alliance managed to establish a government that is resistant to Iranian interests, the overall security of Israeli and American interests in increased, and the Iranians lose their shipping point for supplies to anti-israeli terrorist organizations.
The G.C.C. probably see this both as an opportunity and a threat. On one hand, this revolution will most likely end in poorly for Iranian interests, propel forward Israeli interests. Though curbed by pressure by the United States, the alliance aren't too wild about the "Zionist Plague" Doha recently gave 250 million dollars to Palestinian militants, while Saudi gave 100 million dollars to the Palestinian Authority in order to alleviate their economic woes.
Currently, the Russians and Iranians have been arming the Syrian military in their pitched fight against the FSA. I haven't read any reports by news agencies talking about them arming any rebel groups in anticipation for a post-war power grab. Meaning, that we could be a step ahead of them when the various components within the FSA fracture and fall into conflict with each other.
The group that is best armed in this fight will likely be sustaining the least casualties, thus putting them ahead in terms of fire and manpower in this pessimistic view of Syria's future.
Therefore, finding a group that matches our goals post-Assad and funding them will allow us to hit the ground running when the various groups of the FSA begin fighting for power of the Syrian government. Our superior funding and weaponry should allow us to catch to the headstart the G.C.C. has in terms of influence. However, it is imperative we start soon.
Now then, what exactly should be our goals be for Syria? I think it's a tad unrealistic to expect a government that respects Israel and recognizes their legitimacy as a sovereign nation. However, it is within realistic possibility that a government that fights against Iranian influence and support for Hamas in Hezbollah in the the country. So, whatever group is the most compliant with this goal should be the group the United States supports specifically (which will be referred to from now on in this post as 'group x').
2. Promise Russia that their port in Tartus will remain intact
The Russians have made it blatantly obvious that they care not so much about propping up the dying Syrian regime, but rather maintaining their naval base in Tartus. It actually seems as if Moscow has abandoned the prospect of Assad surviving, stating in June that it would allow for the overthrow of the incumbent regime, "...if that's what the Syrians want" Followed soon after by a contingent of Marines and Amphibious Transports to reinforce the security at Tartus. If the United States were to promise the Russian government that we'd ensure that their base would remain, my guess is that the extent to which they'd get involved would be likely be lessened significantly.
3. Send SOF to support the FSA we decide to support
Though cliche in the military world, the utilization of special forces is probably the best asset to the United States in this conflict. As I've pointed out in previous posts, Special Forces met outstanding success in supporting indigenous forces in their struggles against oppressive regimes.
In 2001, for example, Coalition Special Forces were extremely successful in their operations against the Taliban. They organized and supported the operations of the Northern Alliance, and with the aid of air support, were able to overthrow the Taliban regime before the primary ground force arrived for combat operations.
While in 2003, SOCOM and CIA paramilitary units embedded with Pershmerga forces decimated Ansar Al Islam forces in the village Biyara. Moreover, they served as a block to Saddam's 5th Army Corps, saving hundreds of coalition lives during the invasion.
These units would provide tactical and strategic advice to the commanders of group X, technical training in the weapon systems the U.S. would be supplying them with, intelligence, combat support, and act as diplomats representing our interest for a post-Assad world.
4. Eliminate Chemical storage facilities.
As a top priority, securing or destroying these facilities should be of the utmost importance to the United States of America. At the very least, we do anything, it should be the creation of a task force that will go in and destroy these facilities if needed. We're already late to the game, as Syria has loaded some of these chemical assets into prepared weapons for use at a moment's notice.
However, what should this task force be composed of? There are multiple avenues by which the United States could destroy these security threats. Combined naval and air strikes could be utilized in fashion that see's the elimination of these compounds.
That said, such overt and direct attacks could see a deadly escalation of the conflict. As we've seen before with the Turkish jet, the Syrians are more than capable of shooting down planes, and their missile forces are among the most robust in the Middle East. Such a force presents itself as a large threat to the security of an attack force operating off the coast.
Of course, Tomahawk cruise missiles have the operational range of about 1,200 miles, while the Trident Ballistic missiles have an operational range of over 7,000 miles. Both far outside the range of Syrian cruise missiles. Though, this doesn't necessarily prevent the Syrians from attacking civilian shipping or allied naval vessels in the area. But, we are in the midst of deploying Patriot Missile Systems capable of shooting these cruise missiles. However, they were rather ineffective at shooting down cruise missiles during the First Gulf War and Invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Therefore, such a strike should only be utilized as a last resort against these weapons from being used or falling into terrorist hands. Otherwise, the capture or destruction of these facilities should be left to SOF operating in the country. A much less direct, and diplomatically friendly course of action. However, we should be prepared to use air or naval forces in necessary.
Anyways, thanks for reading the post! This is one of my poorer written ones, but I still think it's rather enjoyable. Merry Christmas, mates!
The moment Assad's dead body is paraded through the street of Damascus, is the moment a violent arms race begins for the establishment of a proxy dominance of Syria's new political system. The four primary belligerents in this new war will undoubtably be the United States and Israel, Russia, Iran, and the Gulf Cooperative Community.
The geopolitical significance of Syria is irrefutable. For Russia, it's viewed as an important forward operating base to launch it's naval presence into the Mediteranean and beyond. With various international restrictions put in place on the Turkish Straits, the Black Sea fleet is restricted in terms of ability to project power. Making Tartus an important sea base for the Russian Navy in terms of force projection and remaining relevant within the global sphere.
For Iran, Syria is a crucial part of it's plan to establish a regional hegemony and an important ally. Moreover, the Iranians use it as a counter weight to Israeli influence and a cover for their plethora of terrorist operations. Further, with a Naval blockade put in place on Gaza, Syria's coastline offers a perfect route by which arms can come in and be shipped off to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations working for Tehran. It's also important to realize the asymmetrical significance of Syria in relation to Iranian grand strategy.
Syria is practically a stones-throw away from the European theater, and with its mass missile supply in reserve, it has the ability to wreck havoc on American and allied units operating in the Med. Sea and Europe. Utilized correctly, the Syrian missile force could very possibly inflict grave damage to NATO forces operating within the European hemisphere.
The collapse of the Syrian regime offers an opportunity to counter an Iranian power surge within the Arab world. If the US-Israeli alliance managed to establish a government that is resistant to Iranian interests, the overall security of Israeli and American interests in increased, and the Iranians lose their shipping point for supplies to anti-israeli terrorist organizations.
The G.C.C. probably see this both as an opportunity and a threat. On one hand, this revolution will most likely end in poorly for Iranian interests, propel forward Israeli interests. Though curbed by pressure by the United States, the alliance aren't too wild about the "Zionist Plague" Doha recently gave 250 million dollars to Palestinian militants, while Saudi gave 100 million dollars to the Palestinian Authority in order to alleviate their economic woes.
Currently, the Russians and Iranians have been arming the Syrian military in their pitched fight against the FSA. I haven't read any reports by news agencies talking about them arming any rebel groups in anticipation for a post-war power grab. Meaning, that we could be a step ahead of them when the various components within the FSA fracture and fall into conflict with each other.
The group that is best armed in this fight will likely be sustaining the least casualties, thus putting them ahead in terms of fire and manpower in this pessimistic view of Syria's future.
Therefore, finding a group that matches our goals post-Assad and funding them will allow us to hit the ground running when the various groups of the FSA begin fighting for power of the Syrian government. Our superior funding and weaponry should allow us to catch to the headstart the G.C.C. has in terms of influence. However, it is imperative we start soon.
Now then, what exactly should be our goals be for Syria? I think it's a tad unrealistic to expect a government that respects Israel and recognizes their legitimacy as a sovereign nation. However, it is within realistic possibility that a government that fights against Iranian influence and support for Hamas in Hezbollah in the the country. So, whatever group is the most compliant with this goal should be the group the United States supports specifically (which will be referred to from now on in this post as 'group x').
2. Promise Russia that their port in Tartus will remain intact
 |
| A Russian Naval Infantryman (Marine) during field exercises |
3. Send SOF to support the FSA we decide to support
Though cliche in the military world, the utilization of special forces is probably the best asset to the United States in this conflict. As I've pointed out in previous posts, Special Forces met outstanding success in supporting indigenous forces in their struggles against oppressive regimes.
In 2001, for example, Coalition Special Forces were extremely successful in their operations against the Taliban. They organized and supported the operations of the Northern Alliance, and with the aid of air support, were able to overthrow the Taliban regime before the primary ground force arrived for combat operations.
While in 2003, SOCOM and CIA paramilitary units embedded with Pershmerga forces decimated Ansar Al Islam forces in the village Biyara. Moreover, they served as a block to Saddam's 5th Army Corps, saving hundreds of coalition lives during the invasion.
These units would provide tactical and strategic advice to the commanders of group X, technical training in the weapon systems the U.S. would be supplying them with, intelligence, combat support, and act as diplomats representing our interest for a post-Assad world.
4. Eliminate Chemical storage facilities.
 |
| Locations of Chemical storage and production centers |
However, what should this task force be composed of? There are multiple avenues by which the United States could destroy these security threats. Combined naval and air strikes could be utilized in fashion that see's the elimination of these compounds.
That said, such overt and direct attacks could see a deadly escalation of the conflict. As we've seen before with the Turkish jet, the Syrians are more than capable of shooting down planes, and their missile forces are among the most robust in the Middle East. Such a force presents itself as a large threat to the security of an attack force operating off the coast.
Of course, Tomahawk cruise missiles have the operational range of about 1,200 miles, while the Trident Ballistic missiles have an operational range of over 7,000 miles. Both far outside the range of Syrian cruise missiles. Though, this doesn't necessarily prevent the Syrians from attacking civilian shipping or allied naval vessels in the area. But, we are in the midst of deploying Patriot Missile Systems capable of shooting these cruise missiles. However, they were rather ineffective at shooting down cruise missiles during the First Gulf War and Invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Therefore, such a strike should only be utilized as a last resort against these weapons from being used or falling into terrorist hands. Otherwise, the capture or destruction of these facilities should be left to SOF operating in the country. A much less direct, and diplomatically friendly course of action. However, we should be prepared to use air or naval forces in necessary.
 |
| U.S. ship firing a missile during Operation Odyssey Dawn |
- Tom
No comments:
Post a Comment