Syria's insurgency beyond Good Guys and Bad Guys

[ProSense]

Syria's insurgency beyond Good Guys and Bad Guys

Posted By Charles Lister

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate on September 4 that "bad guys" and "extremists" make up between 15 and 25 percent of the Syrian insurgency. The reality is far more complicated -- with enormous significance for the prospect of U.S. military action...the crucial point: the insurgency simply cannot effectively be divided into two simple, easy to digest, categories of "moderate" and "extremist." While estimates vary considerably, there are currently thought to be as many as 1,000 individual armed groups in Syria, representing approximately 100,000 fighters. A great deal of these groups are small and operate on a particularly localized level, but there are a number of alliances and lines of loose command and control that provide an inkling of clarity...while numbers and force deployment capabilities are clearly very important, they are not the be all and end all. Like it or not, groups on the more extreme end of the spectrum, particularly those affiliated with al Qaeda, have proven remarkably adept at spreading their military resources across large swathes of territory, joining battles at the pivotal moment, and exploiting their superior organizational structures to establish political control and influence over territory. While some moderate groups have also presented tight levels of organization and command and control, jihadist and Salafist insurgent groups have by and large been notably more effective in this regard.

<...>

Terminology is also a hugely tricky issue. Technically speaking, a very large portion of rebel fighters in Syria would identify themselves as "Islamists" fighting a "jihad." But contrary to popular Western interpretation, this does not make them "extremists" and certainly not "al Qaeda." As has often been the case in complex and bloody sub-state conflicts, those involved -- both directly (insurgents) and indirectly (civilians) -- often turn to religion as a support mechanism. The rapid proliferation of Islamic names for many of the original Free Syrian Army (FSA) units back in 2011 illustrates this clearly.

<...>

All of the above highlights, on a basic level, the conceptual elements of complexity sometimes missing or misused in the current increased coverage of Syria. But the most important element is the specific nature and composition of the insurgency itself. When Kerry claimed that "extremists" comprise between 15 and 25 percent of the insurgency he also stated that the total Syrian insurgent force numbers between 70,000 and 100,000. That is somewhere between 10,500 and 25,000 "bad guys" -- no small number. Secondly, while it's clearly not possible to determine exactly what groups purportedly make up this 15 to 25 percent figure...The most "extreme" portion of the insurgency is represented by the two al Qaeda-affiliated groups: Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Combined, these groups command an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 fighters, distributed in at least 11 of Syria's 14 governorates...The most notable addition to the likely "bad guys" list is Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiya (HASI) and its Syrian Islamic Front (SIF) coalition. A conservative estimate of SIF's total strength (which is dominated heavily by Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiya) is 15,000 to 20,000 fighters, distributed across 11 governorates....So that's potentially between 24,000 and 33,000 "bad guys," or 33 to 34 percent of the insurgency -- already more than the 15 to 25 percent cited...Another potential addition is Suqor al-Sham, which consists of an estimated 8,000 to 9,000 fighters, primarily active in the northern governorates of Idlib and Aleppo...So that's potentially 32,000 to 42,000 "bad guys," or 42 to 46 percent of the insurgency.

<...>

But again, it is more complicated than that....While all three groups are certainly less hardline than Suqor al-Sham, HASI or SIF, ISIS, and Jabhat al-Nusra, they have all on separate occasions rejected democracy in the Western-accepted sense as a concept and expressed a desire for the establishment of an Islamic state in Syria. While Kataib al-Farouq's popularity and strategic significance has declined over the last 12 months, Liwa al-Islam is a critical player in the battle for Damascus and Liwa al-Tawhid is an essential source of authority in Aleppo. Whether a decision has been made not to direct (as much or any) overtly valuable resources to these three groups is impossible to confirm, but considering their potential strategic impact in their respective theaters, it's a trend that is hard to ignore. After all, adding them to the potential "bad guys" list would result in the total reaching between 56,000 and 68,000 fighters, or 68 to 80 percent of the insurgency...This might all appear as an attempt to present Syria's insurgency as a melting pot of extremists -- but it is most certainly not intended as such. Some of the groups mentioned here have adopted pragmatic approaches to stating their political objectives and the exact nature of their desires is a much debated subject. Moreover, I have spoken with members of all groups mentioned in this article and as shocking as it may sound to some, the large majority of them seem, outwardly, to have what they perceive to be Syria's best interests at the forefront of their minds, at least for now. However, the tactics and rhetoric employed by many are clearly unpalatable...While it is incontrovertibly the case that jihadists (or "extremists&quot represent a minority of the total insurgent force, true genuine "moderates" -- by Western standards of supporting the establishment of a non-religious, liberal state preferably founded on democratic principals -- also do not represent a majority. The largest portion of insurgent fighters in Syria is in fact represented by "Islamists," some less socially and politically conservative than others. Crucially, this does not preclude them from being potentially valuable leaders of a future Syria or even as future friends of the West, but it is important that this crucial element of the opposition is included within the minds of today's policymakers.

- more -

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/09/syrias_insurgency_beyond_good_guys_and_bad_guys

Charles Lister is the author of the Janes' analysis (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023673130)

[leveymg]

1. As Lister acknowledges, 68-80 percent reject democracy in the Western-accepted sense as a concept

That's a large majority that I would categorize as extremist and undesirable as potential rulers of "Free Syria."

We're on the wrong side in this. Both sides - practically all sides, are wrong.

But again, it is more complicated than that....While all three groups are certainly less hardline than Suqor al-Sham, HASI or SIF, ISIS, and Jabhat al-Nusra, they have all on separate occasions rejected democracy in the Western-accepted sense as a concept and expressed a desire for the establishment of an Islamic state in Syria. While Kataib al-Farouq's popularity and strategic significance has declined over the last 12 months, Liwa al-Islam is a critical player in the battle for Damascus and Liwa al-Tawhid is an essential source of authority in Aleppo. Whether a decision has been made not to direct (as much or any) overtly valuable resources to these three groups is impossible to confirm, but considering their potential strategic impact in their respective theaters, it's a trend that is hard to ignore. After all, adding them to the potential "bad guys" list would result in the total reaching between 56,000 and 68,000 fighters, or 68 to 80 percent of the insurgency

[ProSense]

2. "We're on the wrong side in this. Both sides - practically all sides, are wrong."

"That's a large majority that I would categorize as extremist and undesirable as potential rulers of "Free Syria." "

He also said:

But contrary to popular Western interpretation, this does not make them "extremists" and certainly not "al Qaeda."

This might all appear as an attempt to present Syria's insurgency as a melting pot of extremists -- but it is most certainly not intended as such. Some of the groups mentioned here have adopted pragmatic approaches to stating their political objectives and the exact nature of their desires is a much debated subject. Moreover, I have spoken with members of all groups mentioned in this article and as shocking as it may sound to some, the large majority of them seem, outwardly, to have what they perceive to be Syria's best interests at the forefront of their minds, at least for now.

Like I said, in the thread linked to in the OP: "Hardline Islamists" by whose definition, and why would that be surprising in Syria?

"As Lister acknowledges, 68-80 percent reject democracy in the Western-accepted sense as a concept"

Is Assad's regime a "democracy in the Western-accepted sense"?

[leveymg]

3. You're talking about replacing a secular despot with an Islamic caliphate. The cost - only 100K

and counting.

Not a very good return on investment on "democratization" and "humanitarian intervention", regardless of whether the new rulers are al-Qaeda. What's the difference?

Usama won.

[ProSense]

4. So your preference is for Assad's brutality because he's a "secular despot"?

The Assad regime has managed to be significantly more brutal than a terrorist organization.

Assad admitted to bombing area after chemical attack took place.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023637203

Russia Today Airs Fake Footage of Rebels Using Sarin Gas in Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023691313

Assad Tells Kucinich Chemical Weapons ‘Not a Secret Anymore’ During...Fox Interview (updated 2x)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023692289

Syria gives Russia chemical weapons evidence
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-gives-russia-chemical-weapons-evidence-095511215.html

Russia Denounces U.N. Chemical Report on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023690377

Of course, the facts aren't going to stop the attempts to absolve Assad by blaming the rebels.

Denmark's Foreign Minister Søvndal’s remarks on UN report of chemical weapons use in Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023678152

Iceland’s Foreign Minister Welcomes Syria Agreement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023678152#post4

The chemical attack is on top of the ongoing brutality of the Assad regime.

UN rights chief condemns use of chemical weapons

By JOHN HEILPRIN Associated Press

The U.N. human rights chief said Monday there is little doubt that chemical weapons were used in Syria but she did not specify which of the combatants was suspected of using them.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay spoke two days ahead of the expected update from a U.N. panel probing for war crimes and other human rights abuses in Syria, including the use of chemical weapons. The 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council, which authorized the probe, is likely to consider a resolution on Syria before the end of its session.

"The use of chemical weapons has long been identified as one of the gravest crimes that can be committed, yet their use in Syria seems now to be in little doubt, even if all the circumstances and responsibilities remain to be clarified," Pillay...noted that when she first urged action to end the Syrian crisis two years ago, some 2,600 Syrians had died in the conflict. Now the number of dead is over 100,000.

"The international community is late, very late to take serious joint action to halt the downward spiral that has gripped Syria, slaughtering its people and destroying its cities," she said. "This appalling situation cries out for international action, yet a military response or the continued supply of arms risk igniting a regional conflagration, possibly resulting in many more deaths and even more widespread misery."

- more -

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/body-told-chemical-weapons-gravest-crimes-20197253

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023627997

Syrian forces responsible for Banias massacres: U.N. report

By Stephanie Nebehay

GENEVA (Reuters) - U.N. rights investigators have established that Syrian government forces were almost certainly responsible for two massacres last May in which up to 450 civilians were killed, a report published on Wednesday said.

The report documented eight mass killings in all, attributing all but one to government forces, but said both government and rebel fighters had committed war crimes including murder, hostage-taking and shelling of civilians in their battle for territory.

The killings in Baida and Ras al-Nabaa, two pockets of rebel sympathizers surrounded by villages loyal to President Bashar al-Assad on the outskirts of the coastal town of Banias, sent a chilling message of the price to be paid for backing the rebels.

The U.N. commission of inquiry has not been allowed into Syria, but its 20 investigators carried out 258 interviews with refugees, defectors and others, in the region and in Geneva, including via Skype, for their 11th report in two years.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-syria-crisis-warcrimes-idUSBRE98A0D520130911

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. My preference is that we not be involved in the Syrian civil war.

As it stands right now, we are funding, arming, and training belligerents on one side.

And threatening to attack the other side.

[ProSense]

6. Well,

My preference is that we not be involved in the Syrian civil war.

As it stands right now, we are funding, arming, and training belligerents on one side.

And threatening to attack the other side.

...the "other side" launched a chemical attack, and has demonstrated it's no better than a terrorist organization.

You may not care about preventing another attack or the crisis of millions of refugees, but the U.S. and the world community are not going to stand idly by.

Number of Syrian refugees tops 2 million mark with more on the way

GENEVA, September 3 (UNHCR) – The number of Syrians forced to seek shelter abroad since civil war began in March 2011 passed the 2 million mark on Tuesday with no sign of the outflow ending soon.

"The war is now well into its third year and Syria is haemorrhaging women, children and men who cross borders often with little more than the clothes on their backs," the UN refugee agency said in a statement released to mark the milestone.

"This trend is nothing less than alarming, representing a jump of almost 1.8 million people in 12 months," UNHCR said. One year ago today, the number of Syrians registered as refugees or awaiting registration stood at about 230,670 people.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres said Syria had become "a disgraceful humanitarian calamity with suffering and displacement unparalleled in recent history." He added that "the only solace is the humanity shown by the neighbouring countries in welcoming and saving the lives of so many refugees."

- more -

http://www.unhcr.org/522495669.html

Obama announces extra $300 million in aid for Syrians, refugees
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19018208-obama-announces-extra-300-million-in-aid-for-syrians-refugees?lite

Touring Refugee Camp, Kerry Sees Mounting Syrian Suffering
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/world/middleeast/touring-refugee-camp-kerry-sees-mounting-syrian-suffering.html

Jimmy Carter: The world now has a chance to end war in Syria (September 11)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023695775

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. And the rebels are the Mary Poppins Brigade, strewing flowers and singing folk songs?

Your imputation that I "don't care" about chemical attacks or refugees is scurrilous. To the degree that the Obama administration sends humanitarian assistance and not more killing machines, I support it.

And while the Assad regime may be "no better than a terrorist organization," about half the rebels are precisely terrorist organizations.

I don't want us mucking around in this mess, except to try to find a diplomatic solution.

[ProSense]

15. Who said that?

"I don't want us mucking around in this mess, except to try to find a diplomatic solution. "

That is underway, and the UN negotiation includes the threat of force.

[leveymg]

9. Can I check "None of the Above"? Or, is someone forcing us to take sides?

The answer to the former question is apparently no because we're so beholden to the damn Saudis and Gulf emirates that we can't say no. Then, there's the 800 pound gorilla in the room, who American politicians NEVER say no to, except at their mortal peril.

[ProSense]

10. No one

"Can I check "None of the Above"? Or, is someone forcing us to take sides?"

...is "forcing" you to take sides. Like I said here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023695094#post6), you may not care about preventing another attack or the crisis of millions of refugees, but the U.S. and the world community are not going to stand idly by.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. You should knock off that accusatory "you may not care" bullshit.

I've been watching this mess unravel from the beginning. I suspect you only care about how it impacts Obama.

[ProSense]

16. Bullshit.

Don't pretend that there haven't been those who claim Syria is not our problem.

[Comrade Grumpy]

23. You directed that remark right at me, so don't dance around the bush.

In return, I will again submit that the only thing you care about it how it makes Obama look.

I'll be ready to get back to substance and beyond ascribing motivation whenever you are.

[ProSense]

25. Right, because your comment implied the U.S. shouldn't get involved

It said nothing about diplomacy.

"In return, I will again submit that the only thing you care about it how it makes Obama look.

I'll be ready to get back to substance and beyond ascribing motivation whenever you are."

You chose to inject a "substance"-free response to comment directly related to your own.

[TheKentuckian]

27. That is correct. In addition this one can feel the tug of his leash from Moscow.

With Russian cooperation, Assad offers the best opportunity for stability once the rebellion is put down.

[The Magistrate]

19. A Couple of Small Points, Sir

Fighting tends to harden people, to weld them tight to an enabling and motivating belief. It is hardly a surprise men on the line with guns in hand express a firm commitment to Islam, in all things and for all seasons.

Small 'd' democrats are pretty thin on the ground in many places; I cannot recall off-hand if Syria has ever had an election that would pass Better Government Association standards, but strongly suspect if I dragged books down I would find it has not. To its adherents, Islam does present itself as a unitary system, in which distinction between religion and state is meaningless. Most Moslems would answer if asked that they want an Islamic state, but there would be almost as many visions of exactly what that might entail as there were Moslems asked.

[libdem4life]

7. In all Civil Wars, both sides "kill their own people" As did the North and the South in US History

Britain, where the Sun Never Set on the Empire, didn't come in and pick sides and try to settle it for us. Had we not done it for ourselves and experienced the devastating full force, who knows what would have gone on and on and on. And the French were only interested for Canada's border.

Children die. Families cease to exist. Homes are invaded and blown up. That's the story of war since homo sapiens got the gift of right and wrong. I do not want my son dying in Syria in someone else's civil war, especially one that is a proxy war for all intents and purposes.

We have some ruthless Dictators now and before on our Global Friends list and civil wars (killing each other families) abound round the globe.

Out of the 1000 groups, as stated in the article, most of whom are experienced in Authoritarianism, just which General do we install, how do we know them or trust them, or....most assuredly, we'll be over there "helping" them, getting killed, sending more to fill in, and the beat goes on.

No to Syria. No to Iran. Diplomacy or stay away.

[ProSense]

8. Which American leader/President are you comparing to Assad? n/t

[leveymg]

11. The Syrian Civil War is small change compared to the US Civil War - >700,000 killed. Want to

talk about devastation and War Crimes? I'll show you devastation and War Crimes, on both sides:

Richmond (1865)



Andersonville, GA Union POW camp prisoners (1864)





September 17, 1862 - Antietam,MD - 22,000 killed in one day

[ProSense]

12. War as "small change"?

Would you say that Afghanistan is "small change" compared to Syria?

Are you saying that based on your rating scale, the world community should ignore that Assad launched a chemical attack that killed up to 1,500 people?

[leveymg]

18. How many more people need to die to meet your standards of moral righteousness and regime change?

That is what got us into this conflict, after all.

[ProSense]

20. You're the one categorizing war as "small change," and why?

You appear opposed to the idea of holding Assad accountable.

[libdem4life]

21. I'm not comparing anyone...speaking to civil war mentality and history...ours and others.

Can you honestly say we do not currently back dictators we like or authoritarian governments who are far from democratic? That's what Foreign Aid is...thank you for being our friend. Seems those we choose to not like conveniently appear geographically along pipeline routes. Not coincidentally.

The American Empire is starting to gasp for breath/funding/cannon fodder/jingo knee jerking/hawkish cheerleaders and some of us are wise to the "incubator cords being pulled".

Yet again I post the very real, historical US Game of Empire.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[geek tragedy]

17. The British were ready to intervene on behalf of the South, but backed off

when they saw that the South was doomed to defeat.

They weren't following the prime directive or any other principle.

[libdem4life]

22. I had not heard that, but incidentally, here is info from Wiki I found interesting...

"Great Britain was officially neutral throughout the American Civil War, 1861–65. Elite opinion tended to favour the Confederacy, while public opinion tended to favour the United States."

Sounds a bit familiar especially since it was the non-elite youngsters who would be sailing over the Pond with American Revolution memories of the Redcoats still pretty intact. It read like there were British trading relationships with the South they felt might be disrupted. I couldn't find anything about "ready to intervene". But who knows?

"The Confederacy, and its president Jefferson Davis, believed from the beginning in "King Cotton" -- the notion that British dependence on cotton for its large textile industry would lead to diplomatic recognition and mediation or military intervention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_in_the_American_Civil_War

[geek tragedy]

24. They were considering recognizing the South as an independent nation.

They wisely decided not to after Antietam.

[libdem4life]

26. Yes, that would make sense. Thanks for the info.

[Scurrilous]

28. K & R