All the evidence points to sectarian civil war in Syria, but no one wants to admit it

As Syrian army tanks mass around Homs and its artillery pounds Sunni districts of the city, Syria is slipping into the first stages of a sectarian civil war. This conflict could be as bloody as anything seen in Iraq between 2006 and 2007 or as long as the civil war in Lebanon (1975-90). The two words that best describe the current process in Syria are "Lebanisation" and "militarisation"; neither bodes well for Syria's people.

Short of a serious split in the Syrian army, the opposition forces' best chance of success is to lure outside powers into such a venture. They want a repeat performance of what happened in Libya. The rag-tag militiamen who finally captured Tripoli would have been beaten in a few days without close air support from Nato. But Syria is not Libya, its powerful armed forces have not yet disintegrated, and, most importantly, it is not isolated internationally to anything like the same degree as Gaddafi was.

By any realistic calculation, Assad might well last into 2014. Glib references to his isolation are exaggerated. The vote on 4 February in the UN Security Council condemning him and asking him to turn over power to his deputy was vetoed by Russia and China.

Webmaster's Commentary: 

The question has to be asked, very bluntly and specifically, about precisely what Russia and China will be willing to do to prevent NATO from acting on the alleged "RTP" (Responsibility to Protect Principal).

HERE is where any NATO intervention, except in the most plausibly deniable ways possible, could get very messy and ugly very quickly.

The US was hoping to have the Assad regime under the proverbial bus before they went after Iran; timing may well not be on their side regarding such an outcome.

So, before Greece defaults, bringing with it the collapse of the Euro and dragging down highly exposed US banks into the mess, complicating and exacerbating the US Depression of 2012, the Obama administration is going to have to find SOME reason to invade Iran, to blame this coming war for every horrendous austerity and civil-liberties crushing action it has in mind for the American people, who never signed up for this immoral or illegal war, or its predecessors.

One needs to go back and look at every other war which was, supposedly waged "to protect civilian life", but resulted in magnifying civilian deaths exponentially.

Tags:

Comments