Something I have not heard about in a long time is whether there are still 400K of Saddam's Sunni stalwarts holed up in Syria. Also haven't heard whether any of them are active in the revolt or supporting the government. Anyone know?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1925660,00.html

I'm not sure we are at a point where you couldn't replace 'Syria' with 'Libya' in that sentence.

The obvious difference being the size of the military maintained by Assad vs that of Gadhafi. Syrian leaders clearly feel that a large (Alawite-controlled) military is necessary to suppress threats -internal and external- rather than a source of trouble.

Syria in my mind is at a far more dangerous geographic intersection than Libya and likely to drawn in more 'joiners' if this thing goes really sideways. Stratfor has a piece today on Sunni jihadi elements attempting to 'join' the Syrian conflict.

Importantly, to begin with, unlike the opposition in Libya, the resistance/uprising against al-Assad and the Ba’ath Party isn’t one cohesive unifying driving force; it seems to be fragmented.

Even in the headline grabbing city of Homs (I’ve heard it pronounced Hims) you have an Alawite enclave, that is providing an anti-Sunni force of irregulars: how do we separate the good from the bad to begin killing 1,000 Syrians, unless we put people on the ground first?

Importantly also, al-Assad and his regime have tacit support from two permanent members on the U.N. Security Council - Russia and China. Russia alone is said to be sending Damscus thirty some odd Yak-130 jet trainer/light attack aircraft. . .but they know who to send them to! : |

Right now, in my view, the dynamics are differant than Libya. However, show me the light, and "I’m all in" (hey, a title of a book?).

Indeed. Sad to relate, the same may just as well be applied to Libya. That allegedly humanitarian interference did nigh-nothing for the refugees that spilled over the border and also the internally displaced. It did nothing to protect black migrant workers -- this is still the case. A blanket has descended over Libya for apart from stray reports of gun-fights, torture, lynchings and the such we don't seem to hear much these days. By a fine irony, some of the New Leaders today accuse the rights organisations that bruited about their lies of... disseminating lies and exaggerations about them. Life is tough.

The big story is that somequarters appear intent on using Sunni extremism (which is later expected to just vanish, somehow) to force change in governments in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. This, they reason, has worked wonderfully well in Egypt, so why not elsewhere.

There is a recrudescence of the 'humanitarian corridors' and 'safe havens' thingy. Sad to relate, all depends on Turkey. Which though it has spoken of safe havens on Syrian soil is probably thinking more of the PKK and eventual Syrian sanctuaries rater than anything else. And in case no one has ever noticed, there is no no-fly zone for Turkish warplanes in Iraqi skies. No doubt Emperor of all the French Sarko I would awfully like a little war to increase his impotence (ummm... importance) just before election time. One wonders, if there is a force of arms zone in Syria that means war with Turkey. Which if Syria attacked (Operation Canned Goods anyone?) would mean NATO intervention. This supposes that the Turks want NATO to dictate their neighbours policy. Uh-huh.

I'm not a lawyer but this was a discussion item at the recent Ethics Conference at the U.S. Naval War College (you can catch the lectures on their You Tube Channel). Whether it's Syria or Libya, nationality doesn't matter. The nature of the conflict is "non-international" which drives the rules of engagement considerably. Instead of shooting someone for WHO they are, you shoot them for WHAT they are doing. In the end, the question becomes do we start choosing our battles on issues President Wilson believed in or something else? I don't see resources being available for this type of thinking. And when the fighting is done, who is going to go in and stabilize the place? Current operations planning within Irregular Warfare are just brining various agenicies and NGOs together. We should've learned our lessons in the Balkans.

Generally speaking, when an 'insurgent' sees one of his shots hit home, he let's fly with an 'Allah Akhbar.' The Syrian activists appear to be blazing a new trail. Every clip they put up of a pipeline or something being hit by a 'regime' shell, at least one of them has to holler 'Allah Akhbar.' One wonders, who was shooting at whom?

Levity aside, in a city with majority/minority zones the thing that most often happens is that )1) the minorties are persuaded to leave and (2) the newly liberated neighbourhood becomes a base to liberate the oppressed majority that is a miniroty in the enclave just next door. Unless we want to go all Manichean, all sides have a similar way of proceeding. Or to be more precise, the focused folks operating on both sides who do the agitprop, the organisation and direct the fighting.

Couple of observations:

-Assad seems more brutally capable and competent than the rather clownish Kaddafi.

-As Fareed Zakaria mentions today brutality more often than not works. Think Tiananmen Square 1989, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, etc.

-The Syrian opposition is a question mark in its own right. Are they the forces of freedom and democracy?

-The military and political leadership does not seem to be fragmenting or defecting but holding together (thank you Russia and China).

-As a state Syria is a far more formidable force (with its Druze and Christian allies) than Kaddafi’s Libya. It also possesses a far more professional and competent military high command that has also retained its key suppliers of military hardware.

-In the past decade American’s of all stripes probably have had enough false assurances by the U. S. military of what they can do. Screwed up wars that cost hundreds of billons but produce little if anything of tangible value to American interests have not been confidence building.

-Our clue to participate should be when the Turks and the Israelis decide to get together and bury the hatched in the back of Assad’s head then maybe we should consider joining the fun. Otherwise hope for the best and expect the worst.

Libya had oil and no/weak allies. Syria has limited oil and powerful allies. That's the difference.

a haven for Al Qaeda? The irony would be astounding, as the US has spent so much in Afghanistan to prevent this.

Al Qaeda's recent actions are puzzlers, on the face of it, they seem stupid, really stupid. If the decades long plan is to get the US into quagmires and wear the old behemoth down and cause disenchantment with foreign interventions, they've succeeded. If this remains true, why then behave in such a manner as to complicate a NATO or "friends of Syria", i.e. largely US funded if not manned, intervention in Syria? Another problematic American intervention, bound to end badly and the destruction of a heretic and Iranian ally would be a positive from their standpoint.

Perhaps there has been a change in strategy, or, perhaps they've reached a point where they think their actions have been so successful they can launch a new project. Al Qaeda's actions seem to be those of a confident group.

(Yes, Al Qaeda exists, and are capable of mischief, but they are not an existential threat to the US, unless we let them by falling for their tricks, and are not a justification for the amount of cash wasted, and is being wasted, by the US Government)

It's interesting to see on the evening news one distressed Syrian citizen after another, professionally videorecorded and speaking good English, instructing the United States to send weapons to attack their national government, or upbraiding the United States for not doing that.

Unsavory, too.

This differs from the Libyan news videos that showed locals issued with excellent weaponry by foreign governments, likely including the United states, and displaying their gratitude and warlike spirit by firing them off at the sky or standing in the middle of desert highway at high noon, or firing the weapons horizontally at government forces evidently well out of range.

How did America get to be regarded by the Arab insurgent all stars as their armorer of choice? .

"How did America get to be regarded by the Arab insurgent all stars as their armorer of choice?"

We've created expectations. The missionary zeal with which the US (POTUS, SecState, Congress, Republicans, NGO's, etc.) preaches Democracy and Human Rights, etc., all over the world has identified us as the champion of all the underdogs. Whether or not we can do it, the rest of the world expects us to. We're being hoist on our own petard.

There is no difference in what the peoples of the Arab Spring want- a better life right here,right now which is obtained only by taking political and economic power into their hands. Ah but there in lies the rub- having obtained this how will they use it! What political-economic institutions will they build,how will they see the US,EU, Israel and what policy-actions will they take? None of these countries is a settled issue-Tunisia has the political breathing space to address the economic problems but that's all.
So we have a choice-stay out of the mix while preaching from afar or get involved with a clear set of goals to try to influence the shape of the outcome.This does not necessarily mean the instruments have to be military, as in weapons and military personnel it does mean that it is a committment until the goals are achieved and has to involve and be devised with our allies in the region and the central on the ground leaders in the nations of the arab spring whether we much care for each other at this moment or not -no more flying in "national leaders" from London or DC-they don't have the street cred to do jack and aren't leaders in a real sense at all.If were not willing to do the work the job requires,stay the hell out.

Nearly all situations differ to be sure. But for discussion sake, the differences may not be as great as many presume. Gaddafi killed his 5,000 in short order thereby causing the international community to respond quickly by providing the rebels with arms which made all of the difference. Assad has killed his 5,000 but at a much slower rate so the international outrage wasn't inflamed in short order to action. But as the death risk continues to rise, the end result is becoming the same. Foreign powers will supply the rebels with weapons adequate to secure majority rebel areas. This too will make all of the difference. The end result will have some similarities to Libya - an extended and inconsistent new government. More pluralistic but not altogether so. Some islamists trying to take advantage of the situation. Eventual consolidation of power. Still too much corruption. But still more freedoms than under the old dictator. Welcome to the new Middle East.

Frankly Mr. Ricks, in terms of people dying and civil wars starting I don't really see a difference. If you were speaking in terms of state power, military capabilities, great power allies and the like then you would have a point but the point you did make doesn't feel that strong.

In Libya, the former slave owners and Jim Crow enforcers helped the former colonial masters drop bombs on Africans in a former African colony, exceeding the UN resolution, until the regime fell. Fortunately, the US and NATO destroyed US computers, cell phones, digital cameras, and fertilizer, the basic components of smart munitions. The US and NATO burned millions of gallons of aviation fuel and diesel fuel. The US and NATO wasted millions of man hours in unproductive work. The US and NATO achieved this while the US and EU have been facing a possible economic and financial collapse. Every Special Forces soldier is taught that the economy pays for the war machine and for the military's technological tools. Every Special Forces instructional manual shows how to engage in sabotage that has an economic and military objective. The African Union and China condemned the exceeding of the UN Resolution on Libya, and China's trade with Africa grew more rapidly than US and NATO trade with Africa.

In Syria, the difference is that the US and former colonial masters will burn millions of gallons of gasoline and waste millions of man hours in unproductive work to move arms and munitions to a former colony or League of Nations Mandate for those who want to get technical. The Syrians will destroy the weapons and munitions, creating their fireworks displays. In addition, this promises to be a much longer war owing to the many factions and powers involved, so the US and NATO can destroy their economies for many years like the Soviets did with their many interventions.

The outcome in Libya is uncertain with different armed groups controlling each city and demanding that those who fought should be represented in any new government. The carnage in Syria will be greater, and the duration will be longer because there are more factions and powers involved with more goals. Also, the outcome is uncertain.

The main outcome of western involvement will be to speed the RELATIVE decline of the West and the rise of China and Russia. Any explosion in the Middle East raises the terror premium on oil and gas, and the pipeline bombing in Syria brings that fact home. The US and NATO have national debts that exceed GDP, while China has over $3 trillion in cash, and Russia exports oil and gas. I placed emphasis on the word "relative" to point out that the US and NATO will not disappear, but China and Russia will have greater economic growth rates than the US and NATO if the West insists on fighting or financing someone else's war.

Do I need to believe that the Syrian rebels are non violent protesters who are attacked by armed Syrian soldiers?

Call it majority vs minority battle, Shia vs Sunni war or religious vs Baathist, the only resolution to Syrian problem is an armistice between the warring factions. Any direct Western interference in Syria could be disastrous for the region.

A civil war implies at least a semblance of parity between opposing factions. This is mass murder, with the victims finally trying to defend themselves after seeing their fathers, brothers, mothers and sons being tortured and killed. Assad doesn't deserve to live let alone rule a country. Period. End of story.

Also, let's not play the coy virgins here. Scratch the surface of the Arab revolutions and you'll find people who went to US-sponsored democracy summer camp to learn proper astroturfing. This is hardly some stuff that "just happened and now we have to deal with it"-we made it happen