loinboy, georgephillip, MJB12741,
et al,
(PREFACE)
Syria is something different depending on the perspective held by the observer.
The Rebels see themselves as the people that are governed by their consent, and which to change the nature of government and the relationship they have experienced over nearly half a century. The want to depose the dictatorial like government and replace it with a government that is more benevolent and responsive to the needs of the people.
The Assad Government sees themselves as the rightful government, over a people that, as of yet, have not attained the prerequisites which are essential and necessary to govern themselves. The Assad Government perceives themselves as the holder of the intrinsic knowledge, skills, and abilities to maintain the continuity of government and the critical services and diplomacy to maintain the integrity of the state.
The Russians see Syria as both an economic and diplomatic investment into an alliance that is one of their major footholds in the region; a platform which holds the center of their regional influence. The Assad government is a known quantity to them, and something with which they have learned to accomodate. Any new government by the people becomes an unknown quantity which they may find less amenable to their proposals.
The Israelis see with a binocular view. Syria (the Assad Government) as a member of the Arab League, a dictatorship, a member of the alliance that helps form a coalition to the detriment of Israeli territorial sovereignty. It sees the government as a hostile entity that supports the aggressive intentions of the Palestinians and their Islamic State comradeship. But it see the people (Rebel Forces) as a new and emerging dynamic to could change the paradigm altogether, from a hostile relationship to one of a cooperative neighbor. It sees a Rebels takeover as potential for advancement and a condition that might foster a new working relationship between the two nations.
Iran sees Syria (Assad Government) as a lucrative alliance member that has assisted the Islamic State in the extension of their influence in asymmetric approaches to destabilize the region. Iran sees no benefit in the security stabilization of the region, as in the chaos it allows them the opportunity to expand their foothold that would normally be beyond their reach. Iran sees the Assad Government as an essential ally, and sees the fall of the Assad Government into the hands of the people that just might choose a more democratic form of government as --- diametrically opposed to their goals and intentions. Thus, the more discord, the better in their view.
The Arab League and Turkey see the turmoil in Syria as a extension of the Arab Spring uprising that does nothing to improve stability, and threatens regional security; compounding already present ethnic disturbances in the region.
Hezbollah is a quasi-proxy, under the influence but not control, of Iran (yet). Hezbollah has had a long standing relationship with the Assad Government dating back to its inception. It is not an ally of the People of Syria, but of the Assad Government. And it sees the fall of the Assad Government as the loss of a critical ally in its bid for the control of Lebanon and the continued struggle against Israel. Hezbollah has made its bed, and sided against the Rebels. So, if the Assad Government falls, the reputation of Hezbollah with the new government may be less than cordial.
The al-Qaeda Element (almost a generic name, the US damn near calls everybody al-Qaeda, you have to look as the history to see where it got its label) is the Joker in the deck. It expects the Rebel Forces to win their bid against the government, and wants to repair and establish a positive relationship with the new government (Rebel Forces) which is something they don't have with the existing leadership (the Assad Government).
NATO/OTAN is the Wild Card in the deck. It has remained relatively quiet, and really doesn't want to do anything to drag it into the conflict/civil war. But it is a card in play and Turkey has it in their hand.
(COMMENT)
No one on the side of the Assad Government wants NATO/OTAN drawn into the fray. It would spell the end of the Assad Government. And Russia does not want to challenge NATO/OTAN at this time. It would be expensive and very messy. Nor does Russia want to created the conditions that the Rebel Forces, which may come into control of the nation, view Russia a negative light.
The US is broke and the military has not fully recovered. It has spent its money on the unsuccessful campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people of the US don't want to be dragged into another war in which the Arabs bite the hand that feeds them; casting a dark shadow on US participation and further smearing the reputation of America. But the US finds it appealing that the Assad Regime might fall to a populace movement. Clearly, the US is attempting to rally support elsewhere in the Arab League to assist the Rebel Forces.
The Assad Government, taking a lesson from Libya and Egypt, does not want to end up like Moammar Khadafy or Hosni Mubarak. So the struggle to retain power is going to be ferocious.
Israel and the US are in an information and intelligence shadow. The UN has suggested that the Rebel Forces had used Chemical Weapons (CW), while the Israel Intelligence has suggest that Assad has used CW. The real critical nature here is that if the Rebels Forces have CW, that means that the jihadis might have access to those same CWs. It has been estimated that 1 in 10 of the Rebels are some sort of Islamists. Having said that, everyone is quick to remind us all that not all Islamists there are Salafists, and not all Salafists are al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda and its affiliates have very strong representation on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights.
This is a mess. And the US needs to stay as far away from it as it possibly can.
Most Respectfully,
R
