What is the GCC up to in Syria?

[FarCenter]

Even though there are no objective conditions whatsoever for a NATO bombing of Syria, the NATO + GCC + Israel geopolitical axis will pursue its objectives relentlessly.

The objectives are vast; exercising total control over any Arab Spring-related transition (as in the case of Yemen); preventing any changes to the status quo (as in pre-emption in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco); outright repression (as in the case of Bahrain); and preferably getting their cake and eating it too (as in the case of Libya).

But Syria is infinitely more complex; because of the Iranian connection; because BRICS members Russia and China will block any regime change scheme; because there have been no significant cracks among the Syrian military; and because the Assad regime is expert in navigating the divisions between a Sunni majority and the Alawite minority.

So the GCC League was successful in Yemen - controlling the "transition" and even having the dictator Ali Abdulla Saleh sent to the United States. It has been relatively successful in Egypt; even though the head of the snake (Hosni Mubarak) was kicked out, the snake is very much alive and kicking (the military establishment), and to top it off, the new parliament boasts a huge Islamist majority (our heart goes out to the youngsters who actually started everything in Tahrir Square and are left with nothing).

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA31Ak04.html

[tabatha]

1. They are trying to stop the killing.

China has not blocked the UN resolution on Syria from today.
Russia is trying to get Assad to step down.
Just a few shots at the falsities in the article.

Explain "getting their cake and eating it too" in Libya?

[Harmony Blue]

5. Unlike Libya

the Russians actually have bases there (Syria). So, their strategy initially was to preserve the regime. Given how dynamic the situation is the Russians have had to adjust their strategy mid stream. Now, they will back the faction most likely to emerge when Assad regime falls. Naval bases to the Russians are very important, especially given the naval base they were considering in Benghazi never materialized.

[tabatha]

9. Do you know that Russia has sold more arms to Syria than the US has to Israel?

[riderinthestorm]

2. No, no, no, doncha see? There aren't any foreign players mucking up the pure revolutionaries

on the streets!

The poor oppressed people are doing all the heavy lifting, procuring weapons and propaganda materials out their own ass! NOBODY else is involved backstage!!1111!!! Especially the big monied interests!!!1111

[tabatha]

8. No, no, no, doncha see? There aren't any foreign players supporting Assad.

Poor Assad, with his all-Alawite forces cannot help themselves from slaughtering all of the unarmed people.

[David__77]

11. What's wrong with Alawi people?

All the Salifi-Islamists talk about the "Alawite dogs" because they consider them heretical.

The security forces of the Syrian state are actually much more diverse than the opposition in sectarian terms. There are Sunni, Christian, and Alawi armymen and police - much more mixed than the overwhelmingly Sunni opposition.

[tabatha]

13. Nothing wrong with Alawite people.

One of the strongest supporters of the uprising is an Alawite actress.

Do you not think it strange that in a country where 80% (or more) are Sunni, that the security forces are almost all Alawite?

[mindwalker_i]

3. Compiling "hello_world.c"?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[The Straight Story]

4. LOL that was my first thought

Glad I am not the only geek around here

[mindwalker_i]

7. .

[tabatha]

10. I have done that in .c, .cpp (C++ course), .php and one other I cannot remember.

[mindwalker_i]

16. Me too, it's always the starting point

for a new language.

[lonestarnot]

6. I'm over here; they are over there. Who the fuck do I believe? I do not know what the fuck to

think about this very complicated issue that I can only read about, and still not know what the fuck to believe about it.

[FarCenter]

12. It's pretty easy

The US is backing street movements to throw out governments that are or have been at odds with US policy, or which are thought to be too corrupt and incompetent to continue.

This is done by assisting "democracy" movements often consisting of the young, unemployed, educated sectors of the population.

However, the Mensheviks are always succeeded by the Bolsheviks. The naive, idealistic, and unorganized are always suceeded by the battle hardened, realistic, and disciplined.

So the various Arab Spring movements will result in a general installation of conservative Sunni Islamic regimes throughout the Middle East, a general cleansing of Christians, and a sharpening of Sunni/Shiite borders with population transfers.

The US thinks that it can control the process so that "moderate Islamists" with limited attachment to Salafist and Wahhabi ideals will emerge, while old regimes with ties to socialism/communism and to Shiite fundamentalism are removed.

It is more likely that the outcome will be more like Afghanistan, where the mujahadeen we supported to drive out the Soviets morphed into the Taliban.

[tabatha]

14. And where is your evidence.

Obama was very slow off the mark to support Egypt.
The US did nothing in Tunisia.
Obama was only persuaded at the 11th hour to help Libya.
The US did nothing to help supporters in Iran, Bahrain, and Yemen.

One of the strongest criticisms of NATO helping in Libya, was why was only Libya chosen - how about all of the other countries - Syria, Iran, Bahrain, Yemen.

You will find several posts on DU asking that.

[FarCenter]

15. The US has been supporting NGOs and pro-democracy movements in the Arab countries for years.

Middle East Partnership Initiative, USAID, National Endowment for Democracy and others are conduits for big monetary and other assistance to such groups.

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/CarnegiePaper44.pdf
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2011/0426_middle_east_hamid.aspx

Obama was diffident about Egypt at least in part because Israel did not want to see political instability adjacent to Gaza. I'm sure that they are working feverishly to try to keep the military in power and on board with the Camp David Accords, although if you put the Camp David Accords to a referundum in Egypt, they would be abrogated.

No one had to do anything in Tunisia, since it collapsed from within. It followed the color revolution scenario when masses of the populace took to the streets and police and military would not suppress them. However, color revolutions do not work against well disciplined militaries. So long as you can shoot several percent of the opposition, the oppostion will collapse. See Stalin and Mao for examples.

The US essentially ran the technical intelligence and air war campaign in Libya, even though the operational forces were mostly French and British after the initial raids to reduce the air defenses.

The US has been running operations against Iran since the Carter administration. This involves supporting groups inside Iran, other opposition groups outside Iran like the Mujahadeen Kalkh, and special forces operations. We have not had much success, but not for lack of trying.

In the case of Bahrain, we are allied with Saudi Arabia due to oil, and the Saudis will shoot enough Bahraini Shiites to keep them supressed. See above.

In Yemen, it is a complicated situation, but Yemen is a combination of Yemen and the former Britsh colony of Aden. Aden became communist after independence. The combination of the Yemen's solved that problem, but there is still active opposition in the south. Besides, AlQaeda is active in Yemen, so we are just trying to keep a lid on the situation so that our interests in the area are preserved.

[tabatha]

17. What you have said is for the most part correct and well-known.

But what you have not covered is that the revolutions would never have even started without the dissatisfaction of the Arabs, where a large population of the youth were unemployed and very unhappy being under ruthless, authoritarian regimes. A Libyan poster on AJE said that most of the Libyans understood that this revolution was for the youth and their futures.

NATO certainly was necessary for the Libyan revolution to succeed, but it was only one half the coin. There would have been nothing to support without the drive, resolution and determination of the Libyan people. The voices of a country should be from a majority of the people, not by a single family and associates.

There are apparently two sides to this argument - one, the US getting involved in other countries and trying to shape the outcomes to its advantage - and two, the people in those countries revolting to overcome authoritarian govts, often with outside help. Libya would have been exactly like Tunisia if Gaddafi had stepped down as swiftly as Ben Ali did. Then there would have been no UN resolution, no NATO action, etc.

I happen to be on the second side - I enjoy freedom where I live, and do not begrudge others wanting theirs.

In South Africa, I enjoyed enormous freedom, but it came at a cost to the bulk of the population in that country, whose freedoms were stifled. I was always on the side of the downtrodden, even against the privileged who often scorned and belittled the desire for rights by the less privileged. I know how much the outside world helped in bringing down the apartheid government with sanctions and boycotts, and how difficult the transition has been after 200 years after brutality. Brutalized people take time to adjust to normalcy. I talked to those people, hurt with them, helped them, supported them. Thus I could identify with the Libyans and now the Syrians. My mental state is of how they can achieve their goals, not about who may be helping them.

However, I do understand those who are on the first side. From their point of view, it is the meddling by the country in which they live that upsets them. As a result of what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand that because I was also against the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were not motivated by the desire to help the people in those countries. In fact, I likened it to the meddling by P.W. Botha in countries surrounding South Africa - Namibia, Mozambique, etc. It was all about "kragdadigheid", a show of strength that the Nationalists in South Africa responded to, just like the Republicans in the US respond to.

Helping people achieve democracy is a good thing; forcing people to achieve democracy is a bad thing.

[FarCenter]

18. US foreign policy is all about global "kragdadigheid".

It is all about being the "sole superpower" in the "American Century".

In a relatively small country like South Africa, there is at least some hope that more equality can be achieved mostly by raising the living standard of all the people.

That is not possible on a global scale, where it is more of a zero sum game where the use has about a fourth or fifth of the goodies for a twentieth of the population. The necessary adjustment will be resisted fiercely.