Syrian Internal Conflict

[lucinator]

Half a year ago I started a thread on whether or not there should be a Libyan no fly zone. To my surprise it generated fierce debate.(mostly against such a measure) Now I am starting one for Syria.

So here it is, should there be a no fly zone in Syria to end government killing of civilians?

[Todjaeger]

Originally Posted by lucinator

Half a year ago I started a thread on whether or not there should be a Libyan no fly zone. To my surprise it generated fierce debate.(mostly against such a measure) Now I am starting one for Syria.

So here it is, should there be a no fly zone in Syria to end government killing of civilians?

Several questions come immediately to mind regarding a "Syrian No Fly Zone".

The first is just what role have aircraft played in the Syrian unrest? If aircraft have not been used to attack civilians, then there is no reason for a No Fly Zone, since it would not have an impact.

Secondly, what are the expectations on the outcome of the ground situation? If the civilians cannot take control of the ground, and/or outside forces enter Syria to do so on behalf/with the civilians, then again, a No Fly Zone would not have an impact on the end results.

I could be mistaken, but my impressions have been that the Syrian government and forces under Assad have much greater control over the ground than Libyan forces did under Gadaffi. Because of that, airstrikes were conducted in Libya on areas which had falled to those rebelling. With the Libyan No Fly Zone, Gadaffi lost the ability to conduct such strikes, and then there was the air campaign against Gaffi's forces which were attacking civilian areas with artillery, etc. Ultimately tipping the balance of power enough for the civilian population to retake the country.

In Syria, unless that balance of power can be tipped sufficiently towards those who are in revolt, then a No Fly Zone would at best delay things. Given that I do not think the ground situation in Syria is as far along as it was in Libya, and I have serious doubts that outside powers would be as eager to intervene in Syria as occurred in Libya, I do not think a No Fly Zone is likely.

-Cheers

[lucinator]

well for one thing according to CNN planes and helo's have been bombing civilian homes and residential areas. Also with more and more army units defecting it could help them organize a effective resistance. Lastly airstrikes could help protect some of the towns that have been under siege and attacked by Syrian tanks and armored vehicles,

[Tom Bryceland]

A No Fly zone there is a whole new Ballgame, for a number of reasons, it would be difficult, but that should not factor into the decision.

1) It would Not be a UN Mission this time. No chance that Russia and China will allow it. "Insta-Veto"

2) Syria has a mutual defence pact with Iran. (sorry cant post links)

3) Remember "No Fly Zone" means making the area safe your your own country to flyover , which in turn means taking out the more serious AA Assets in Syria before any Air Patrols start.

Estamated Syrian Air Defence Force as per (As Per Wikipedia)


40,000 active personnel
Two Air Defence Division HQ
Twenty-five Air Defence Brigade
One hundred thirty Air Defence Batteries

25 teams defense (130 batteries) Including:

Self-propelled
62 batteries:
11 teams - 27 batteries - SA-6 Gainful (PU SAM 2K12 Square);
14 Battery - SA-8 Gecko (PU SAM 9K33 Osa);
12 Battery - SA-22 Greyhound (96K6 Pantsyr S1E);
9 Battery - Buk-M2
Towed
11 teams - 60 batteries with SA-2 Guideline (CP-75 Dvina / S-75M Volga) and SA-3 Goa (S-125 Neva / S-125M Pechora) (Being upgraded);
Two SAM regiment with SA-5 Gammon(in each brigade to 2 divisions for 2 batteries each).
Four SAM battalion
Eight Static/Shelter SAM batteries

Two independent SAM Regiment
Four SAM batteries with SA-8
Four SAM batteries with SA-10

Think about what would be needed to remove those assets. Possibly only the US has the capability and Volume of assets to get the job done in a decent time scale.

4) Getting involved in Syria has the potential to become a total war scenario, drawing in Iran, Israle, China, Russia, Turkey, Hezbolla, Hamas etc etc.

It will take a lot of political manovering and horse trading to keep russia and china out of it, on the level of scrapping the euro ABM shield or letting go of Tiawan.

[Ananda]

I Think I agree with Todjaeger. Is there any large scale organized armed rebellions on the ground in Syria ? I Believe Nato take the chances for No Fly Zone, since there already evidence significant armed rebellion already occurred in Libya and Khadafi's lossing grip on his Army. Until such thing happen with Assad, I don't think Nato will take the chances for that.

Besides, in the Arab world eyes, unlike Khadafi's, Assad is a direct opposing force to Israel. Military intervention to Syria will only be seen in the Arab world as beneficiary to Israel only. Different reaction will be come from them, compared to Khadafi's.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by Tom Bryceland

1) It would Not be a UN Mission this time. No chance that Russia and China will allow it. "Insta-Veto"

I have a sneaking suspicion that an agreement or deal was made behind the scenes, to allow NATO to do as they please in Libya, in exchange for staying out of Syria. The situations in the two countries are eerily similar, yet while Libya was in the media spotlight (no accident, mind you) from the get-go, Syria is being kept fairly quiet and low-profile. To be precise, I don't have any evidence of this, but it would explain rather nicely why Russia and China didn't veto the Libyan resolution, and why so little pressure is being put on Syria.

2) Syria has a mutual defence pact with Iran. (sorry cant post links)

I doubt that would factor in to it. Iran's air assets are negligible for this scenario. They would likely resort to international scandal and covert arms shipments, but that's to be expected either way.

3) Remember "No Fly Zone" means making the area safe your your own country to flyover , which in turn means taking out the more serious AA Assets in Syria before any Air Patrols start.

Well yes, that is assuming that Syria resists the no fly zone. Given how they're winning the fight on the ground, they could simply choose to comply with it, and voluntarily ground their aircraft, and leave their SAMs cold. It wouldn't be a conventional response, but it would be a smart one, given their circumstances.

11 teams - 27 batteries - SA-6 Gainful (PU SAM 2K12 Square);
14 Battery - SA-8 Gecko (PU SAM 9K33 Osa);

Basically irrelevant. They're too old.

12 Battery - SA-22 Greyhound (96K6 Pantsyr S1E);

I'm not sure what you mean by battery, but iirc 50 units were delivered. Russian PVO units tend to have 6 unit batteries, so this would be 8 batteries, with 2 units to spare (possibly for training centers, or something along those lines). However these are short range SPAAG-SAM hybrids, that are meant for protecting divisional and theater level SAM assets. They have little value by themselves.

9 Battery - Buk-M2

Ah yes, the real deal, or rather, what the Pantsyr-1S' are meant to protect. Note, however, how small the numbers are. That's modern 18 SAMs, and 9 reloader vehicles.

Towed
11 teams - 60 batteries with SA-2 Guideline (CP-75 Dvina / S-75M Volga) and SA-3 Goa (S-125 Neva / S-125M Pechora) (Being upgraded);

Museum pieces. Even if they're getting the Pechora-2M upgrade, they're of limited utility at best.

Two SAM regiment with SA-5 Gammon(in each brigade to 2 divisions for 2 batteries each).

Virtually irrelevant.

Two independent SAM Regiment
Four SAM batteries with SA-8
Four SAM batteries with SA-10

Really? Syria has taken deliveries of S-300s? And when was this?

Think about what would be needed to remove those assets. Possibly only the US has the capability and Volume of assets to get the job done in a decent time scale.

Nah. The AO is much smaller then Libya. The Europeans are up to it, and if Israel was involved it would be even easier.

4) Getting involved in Syria has the potential to become a total war scenario, drawing in Iran, Israle, China, Russia, Turkey, Hezbolla, Hamas etc etc.

Russia would not go to war over Syria. Neither would China. Iran simply can't do anything in Syria, other then some minor support. Turkey would be on the same side as the rest of NATO, if they choose to get involved, same with Israel.

It will take a lot of political manovering and horse trading to keep russia and china out of it, on the level of scrapping the euro ABM shield or letting go of Tiawan.

The Russian's don't really want the BMD gone. They want to be part of it. But yes, giving the Russians full partnership in the BMD shield might do the trick. Letting go of Taiwan isn't even on the table. Nevermind that Taiwan at this point is quite capable of protecting their de-facto independence themselves. This point of yours, however, is the real and biggest objection by far, to an intervention in Syria.

[swerve]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Nah. The AO is much smaller then Libya. The Europeans are up to it, and if Israel was involved it would be even easier.

Israel would keep completely out of it, for the excellent reason that Israeli involvement on the side of the rebels would undercut them, not help them.

Physically much easier than Libya. A much smaller country, with two British bases in Cyprus (but completely exempt from Cypriot control), much closer than any NATO base is to Libya. Akrotiri has a fully-equipped air base. Dhekelia only has a small airfield, but it'd do for UAVs.

Originally Posted by Feanor

Russia would not go to war over Syria. Neither would China. Iran simply can't do anything in Syria, other then some minor support. Turkey would be on the same side as the rest of NATO, if they choose to get involved, same with Israel..

Turkish involvement would make it very easy indeed. All the bases one could possibly want, right next door, & the Turkish air force.

There are also Arab countries which would like to see the Assads out of power: Jordan, & most of the Gulf states. That adds possibilities.

But (to digress into the background for a while) Syria is much better armed than Libya, & the armed forces are probably able to use their weapons better. Assad is less of a loony. I doubt he imagines (as Gaddafi did, from all the evidence) that most people in his country love him. There's no large section of the country controlled by the opposition, as there was in Libya. The scope for collapsing into ethnic & religious strife is vastly more. Libya is very homogeneous: Syria is diverse, with several large minorities, some of which (particularly the Alawites) are over-represented in the hierarchy. Syria is in a more complicated area, with more turbulent neighbours.

It's much more likely to go horribly wrong.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by swerve

Israel would keep completely out of it, for the excellent reason that Israeli involvement on the side of the rebels would undercut them, not help them.

Good point, you're probably right.

Physically much easier than Libya. A much smaller country, with two British bases in Cyprus (but completely exempt from Cypriot control), much closer than any NATO base is to Libya. Akrotiri has a fully-equipped air base. Dhekelia only has a small airfield, but it'd do for UAVs.


Turkish involvement would make it very easy indeed. All the bases one could possibly want, right next door, & the Turkish air force.

Exactly. It's not a matter of ability, it's a matter of considering the consequences.

There are also Arab countries which would like to see the Assads out of power: Jordan, & most of the Gulf states. That adds possibilities.

But (to digress into the background for a while) Syria is much better armed than Libya, & the armed forces are probably able to use their weapons better. Assad is less of a loony. I doubt he imagines (as Gaddafi did, from all the evidence) that most people in his country love him. There's no large section of the country controlled by the opposition, as there was in Libya. The scope for collapsing into ethnic & religious strife is vastly more. Libya is very homogeneous: Syria is diverse, with several large minorities, some of which (particularly the Alawites) are over-represented in the hierarchy. Syria is in a more complicated area, with more turbulent neighbours.

It's much more likely to go horribly wrong.

They're not much better armed. Certainly not better by enough to make a difference. They have a handful of Fulcrums, and are due some more (24 more) but the bulk of their airforce is the same 3rd gen Soviet stuff. Tom gave a fairly thorough run down of their GBAD, and the only relevant stuff they have are the Buk and Pantsyr systems. If they use them in conjunction, keep them mobile, and coordinate with their Fulcrums, they might be able to cause some damage. Certainly not enough to affect the outcome.

[swerve]

Most of Libya's weapons were in storage, & a very large proportion (e.g. the majority of the tanks) always had been, & there were nowhere near enough trained crews to use them. A relatively small number had to be knocked out to blunt the edge Gaddafi had over the rebels, & produce the stalemate which eventually (with more bombing) swung against him.

Syria has far more weapons with units, & with trained crews, & therefore usable - and numbers of everything are considerably greater: more aircraft, more tanks, more artillery, etc.

Putting the air force out of action wouldn't be the big problem, but what would happen on the ground.

[Tom Bryceland]

I hope your right about China and to a lesser extent Russia staying out of any involvement in Syria. From a Humanist view point something really needs to be done, but this is not Libya and there are so many ways this could go wrong.

Personally, i think the time is about right for China to start flexing its muscles in the international arena. I would not be suprised if we see something along the lines of a few of their frigates moving to the eastern med and maybe a few last minute arms sales.

And then there is this.

(This is a questionable source, as many of you no doubt know about DEBKA, But they are not the only ones saying this)

Russia boosts Iran's armory with mobile radar-jammers against planes or missiles

DEBKAfile Special Report
October 26, 2011, 2:52 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Russian Aztobaza-ELINT radar jammer

Moscow has sold Iran the highly-advanced Avtobaza truck-mounted systems capable of jamming aircraft radar and the electronic guidance instruments of attacking missiles. The deal, announced in Moscow Tuesday, Oct. 25, substantially boosts Russian military assistance to the Islamic Republic, especially of defensive weaponry. The US and Israel suspect the Avotbaza jammers are only the first installment of the complete ELINT-electronic signals system for disabling planes and missiles over the entire Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea.

This is the kind of help i would expect Iran to provide.

In addition, today has been rather disturbing in that the War Drums are getting louder and more mainstream too.

We have Israel publicly stating that they are planning an attack on Iran.
Still no links for me yet, so google: "Benjamin Netanyahu seeks cabinet support for Israeli strike on Iran"

(oddly enough, in the Bush era of doctrine, this would be a clear and legal cause for Iran to make a first strike on Israle. Defensive Pre-Emptive Strike)


Than a little later today we had this from the Guardian:

(Google the Headline)
UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears
British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran's capability

In this article, its pretty much declared that we will be directly involved if there is an attack on Iran.

Then there was the UN declaration "A Syrian uranium enrichment plant discovered"

And to top off todays headlines, Israle test launchest an ICBM.

I know we were talking about Syria, But i find it difficult to separate these 2 countries and their respective spheres of influence and issues. What happens to one will involve the other.

On the bright side,

I think that Syria is allready seriously weakened with the army defections etc, although their engineer corps have been placing land mines along all their borders, i think this shows that they are expecting trouble to come their way and are now preparing for it.

I think it is safe to say, This war is comming wither we like it or not, and the Mainstream media are all aboard again.

[davidoga]

Keep in mind why Syrian protests started in the first place: religion and economy.

Religion: The Al-Assad clan is Alawite, while the majority of Syrians are Sunni. Had religious issues been the only grievance, do the Syrian people have the revolt simply because Al-Assad believes in a different sect of Islam? Of course not.

Economy: Traditionally, Syria is a socialist state. Their central economy was working relatively well. Then, Western influence intorduced capitalism, driving up unemployment and ending food/agricultural subsidies. The al-Assad regime, therefore, is not to blame for these hardships.

Arab countries need a strong leader, and democracy is often conducive to the opposite. Al-Assad is still the best option for Syria.

[Todjaeger]

Originally Posted by davidoga

Economy: Traditionally, Syria is a socialist state. Their central economy was working relatively well. Then, Western influence intorduced capitalism, driving up unemployment and ending food/agricultural subsidies. The al-Assad regime, therefore, is not to blame for these hardships.

Care to explain what you mean by this? What immediately comes to mind when people use the term 'socialist state' is a newer concept than 'capitalism'.

Further, I would not exactly describe Syria as a nation over which the West has much influence. Certainly not enough to force Syria to change the economic model being followed. Not to mention that capitalism is not solely a Western economic activity.

From what was posted above, it does sound like the West is being blamed for economic hardships being suffered by Syria. Some clarification would be nice.

-Cheers

[lucinator]

Originally Posted by davidoga

Keep in mind why Syrian protests started in the first place: religion and economy.

Religion: The Al-Assad clan is Alawite, while the majority of Syrians are Sunni. Had religious issues been the only grievance, do the Syrian people have the revolt simply because Al-Assad believes in a different sect of Islam? Of course not.

Economy: Traditionally, Syria is a socialist state. Their central economy was working relatively well. Then, Western influence intorduced capitalism, driving up unemployment and ending food/agricultural subsidies. The al-Assad regime, therefore, is not to blame for these hardships.

Arab countries need a strong leader, and democracy is often conducive to the opposite. Al-Assad is still the best option for Syria.

I call bull, Al-Assad is DEFINITELY not the best option for Syria. ANY person who tortures kids, and such should not be in power. (granted the US still supports a few)

As for Tom and Israel he might take those statement with a grain of salt. I don't see Israel ever announcing that they are about to attack, its just not the way they do business. This is a warning to the international community that if they don't do something about Iran soon they will.

[ngatimozart]

Originally Posted by lucinator

I call bull, Al-Assad is DEFINITELY not the best option for Syria. ANY person who tortures kids, and such should not be in power. (granted the US still supports a few)

Totally agree with you Lucinator.

As for Tom and Israel he might take those statement with a grain of salt. I don't see Israel ever announcing that they are about to attack, its just not the way they do business. This is a warning to the international community that if they don't do something about Iran soon they will.

I would agree. The Israelis have given the warning and if they need they'll attack like their1980's attack on the Iraq program. The thing that concerns me is that if they do, it could be the tipping point and ignite another regional conflict. I used to respect the Israelis but since Sharon they have gone down a lot in my estimation. They have become arrogant and seem to think that they can act with impunity. It is that attitude that is concerning in an area which is a powder keg with a short lit fuse.

I cannot see a no fly zone being operated in Syrian airspace nor even being entertained by the US. The US has already said that it is not an option. Iran is the other factor. Libya is a long way from Iran but Syria is just over the neighbours fence and Iran supports Assad. Secondly, come 31/12/2011 the last US forces will be out of Iraq and how well will the Iraqi govt be able to secure their borders if they want too? No going into Syria like Libya would be a very bad idea. I agree with Tom about the humanistic side, but armed intervention is not wise. Other means will have to be found.

I see on Aljazeera News Assad has agreed with the Arab mediators to allow them and media in. He has also agreed to withdraw troops from the "occupied" cities, villages etc., and to have, what one hopes, constructive dialogue with the protestors through the Arab mediators. Maybe this is a start in the right direction. I hope so.

[davidoga]

Originally Posted by Todjaeger

Care to explain what you mean by this? What immediately comes to mind when people use the term 'socialist state' is a newer concept than 'capitalism'.

Further, I would not exactly describe Syria as a nation over which the West has much influence. Certainly not enough to force Syria to change the economic model being followed. Not to mention that capitalism is not solely a Western economic activity.

From what was posted above, it does sound like the West is being blamed for economic hardships being suffered by Syria. Some clarification would be nice.

-Cheers

I'd be happy to clarify.

Syria has been dominated by the Ba'ath Party, which has a socialist agenda, since 1963. No, the West doesn't not have influence over Syria in the traditional sense, but with the fall of communism in the late 20th century, socialist economies have been drying out. However, know that I think about, Syria used to trade heavily with the Turkey (and the EU to some extent), which are both capitalist-leaning countries.
To my knowledge, capitalism is a Western idea.

I'm not saying that the al-Assad regime is perfect, but it is becoming increasing obvious that Western countries are to blame.

And that BS about Assad killing children and w/e....that happens in most countries in Africa and I'm sure Asia to some extent. I don't massive protests over their administration? Besides, you'd have to be foolish to believe everything that Western media feeds you.