Sunday, October 25, 2015

U.S. and Saudi Arabia to increase support for Syrian rebels as the search for a political solution continues. Reuters.

John Kerry meets with King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Reuters.

The United States and Saudi Arabia are planning on increasing their support of rebels fighting the regime in Syria. Reuters. In meetings with the King, Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed both countries continued support for rebel groups. They also are looking for some kind of diplomatic solutions. No details were revealed about what this new support would consist of but both countries provide weapons and training to certain rebel groups. All diplomatic talks on Syria have predictably failed due to instance by the United States, and many other companies, that Bashar al-Assad must leave the presidency. The other major players in the Syria drama, Iran and Russia, claim that there are no secular rebel groups left and that both the United States and Saudi Arabia are helping terrorists. 

On the military front, the anti-tank missiles are having a major effect. The Daily Beast. TOW missile launchers are destroying dozens of tanks and are allowing the rebels to blunt Syria's latest offensive and are even allowing them to take territory. The increase in the use of anti-tank missiles has greatly diminished the regime's armor advantage and has even countered the advantage the Syrians have in air support. 

My Comment:
I'm not very happy about these developments. I am on record as saying that arming rebels is a very, very bad idea. Though the idea that there are no secular rebels left in Syria isn't completely true, it is true that there are very few rebels left that won't work with Islamic terrorist groups like al-Nusra. Sure, just because these groups are fighting side by side with al-Qaeda's organization in Syria doesn't mean that they are terrorists, but it does mean we are indirectly helping our most hated enemy. I tend to judge people by the company they keep and the rebels keep the company of pure evil. We shouldn't be helping them, unless they decide to use their weapons against al-Nusra. 

As for a diplomatic solution, how would that even work? Bashar al-Assad is not going anywhere. He knows that if he surrenders he will likely end up like Saddam Huessien or Muammar Gaddafi. It's not just about holding onto power for him, though I don't doubt that it is a factor as well. It's about being allowed to live, and the only way he can guarantee that is by staying in power. Any agreement or solution that doesn't account for that is doomed to failure. Sure, he could go into exile or to prison, but even then, his life will be over. That may be justice, since Bashar al-Assad is an evil person, but it pays to understand what the issue actually is. Assad doesn't want to die or go to prison for the rest of his life and that's the actual sticking point. 

And even if there was a solution, why would the rebels or the terrorists go along with it? The rebels might want an end to the fighting and if Assad were to go they might cooperate. Or they might just throw their lot in with the Jihadists and keep fighting. Groups like al-Nusra and ISIS won't stop fighting. They have religious reasons to keep the war going and they hate the groups that would negotiate a settlement. Do you really think ISIS and al-Nusra would follow any agreement authored by the United States? They are committed to destroying us, not working with us. 

If I were in charge I would suspend all training and arms deals with all of the non-Kurdish groups in the country. I would also demand the return of all our anti-tank missiles, with possible airstrikes and commando raids against any group that refuses to return them. I don't like that we are working with people that are fighting with groups like al-Nusra. Unfortunately, that will never happen. 

As for the TOW missiles, it seems like they are having a huge effect on the war. I posted before about how dangerous these weapons are, and it's clear that even then I underestimated how effective they are against Syrian armor. From the Daily Beast article it sounds like they new Syrian offensive has bogged down and that the rebels are even advancing in a few areas. 

These weapons must be completely demoralizing for the Syrians. Their main advantage is armor and to see their weapons just be hard countered like this must be devastating. Without their advantage in armor, the playing field is a lot more even. That isn't to say that the Syrians don't have advantages though. Even if their armor advantage is being countered, they still have plenty of tanks and APC's. They can still use them, they just have to be more careful with them. They also have plenty of air support and my guess is that they have the advantage in artillery as well. Still, who fights harder? A group of soldiers that have a couple of tanks backing them up, or  group of soldiers who just saw their armor destroyed? 

As for the war itself, I think we have settled back into a stalemate. I don't think any side is in a great position to win the war. The Syrians have an exhausted army and their armor advantage has been weakened. The rebel groups are coming under massive attacks from the Russian air force and are the primary targets for the Syrian regime. And ISIS is too busy fighting everyone to focus on knocking any one faction out of the war. As it stands right now, I see no end to the fighting any time soon... 

No comments:

Post a Comment