Skip to main content

View Diary: Regarding the Syrian Rebels V (13 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you for all the work you do to (6+ / 0-)

    give us insight into the situation in Syria.

    A few points come to mind:

    1. The percentage breakdown of rebel memberships is one thing. But what of an actual power breakdown: things like organization; financial strength; territory/borders controlled; prospects of foreign recruits joining in, etc.
    2. Recalling the Mujaheads of Afghanistan days, the US allies against the Soviets who then turned to be our enemies, what of the rebels we are currently supporting? If they could rid themselves of Assad, would they then turn on us, or do they like the US?
    3. It is exceedingly strange to my mind that we know the jihadi-types (literal al-qaeda and affiliates) have camps; troop concentrations; leaderships; etc and the US isn't bombing the shit out of them.
          Add in the UN's belief that such groups used sarin in March 2013 in at least Aleppo, and by Russian accounts, in Homs Dec 2012...
          Plus the ethnic cleansing of Christian areas (450,000 of the 2 mllion refugees being Christians)...
          Well, what's that?
    4. And what do you know of the truth (or not) of this report from the Russians, which claims to be based on Turkish sources that Turkish prosecutors indict Syrian rebels for seeking chemical weapons. According to the story ten tons of ingredients used to make sarin were sought by a members of al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham.

    Not that I expect you to know the answers to any of these; then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

    But points which seem worthy of consideration, I believe.

    * * * * * * * *
    OT & PS: am about 1/3 through Orhan Pamuk's "My Name is Red." What an amazing writer!


    Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

    by Jim P on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 01:49:28 PM PDT

    •  Information I have about these four points. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jim P, lebman, wu ming, chuckvw, YucatanMan, JesseCW

      1. The two most radical blocs (the bottom two on the graphic above) are the most 'effective' because they are the most radical and answer to no one. They are well financed and the sources of their finances are believed to be mostly very wealthy Saudis, Qataris, and Kuwaitis. They are also more organized because they have at least 20 years of experience, and the non-Syrian rebels are mostly in these two blocs. They also control four border crossings between Turkey and Syria.

      2. One of the main reasons it has been difficult to provide weapons to the rebels is that because of the overlaps of the blocs there is no way to be sure that weapons provided through the SMC won't end up in the hands of al-Nusrah or ISI(S). All of the opposition members and rebels I have talked to loath the US and have no intention of being allies with the US if they were to win.

      3. Do you think there is any possibility that the US will bomb rebels who have very powerful Saudi, Qatari, and Kuwaiti connections?

      4. The news about the rebel efforts to buy these chemicals is true. It has been covered in the Turkish media and caused embarrassment for the Turkish government who were very instrumental in helping these groups get established and grow in Syria in 2011 and 2012.

      Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

      by InAntalya on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 02:22:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you for the answers. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, JesseCW

        Why I asked these questions was I plan to write soon about US geo-political strategy. Many at DKos find it bordering on Conspiracy Theory to suggest we have one.

        It seems to me that the entire "Syria/Assad's CW use" issue can't be properly approached unless one realizes that it's much more about Russia than it is about Syria. (Same goes for Libya and Iran)

        Though the public is not told that; nor can I recall the last time any debate open to the electorate was held in the US about our geo-political strategy. Maybe we came close in 1972, with the "dove" McGovern as the Dem Candidate.


        Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

        by Jim P on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 03:18:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  some points and a question (0+ / 0-)

        1. Turkey can shut down weapons supplied to the rebels once US demands it. Now the US wants to keep the war going to weaken Assad further having avoided getting directly involved for whatever reason. Part of the problem is the US has no good sense where weapons end up

        2. If ISIS/NUSRA get too strong, it will be a huge problem for the west. An uncontrolled force in a large swath of land maybe able to survive without any external support

        3. Hope we never get to that point, but it is conceivable-Taliban, bin laden come to mind.

        4. Good thing US and Russia will work on taking out chemical weapons. Maybe Russia wants Syria to get rid of them in case they fall in rebel hands.

        5. Is there an appetite in Turkey for direct Turkish military involvement in Syria? Not to mention that will raise the specter of the Ottoman Empire many of us Arabs-Christian Sunni and Shia- loath to say the least.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site