The only good thing about our dithering about action in Syria was that the Syrian military was on pause as they scattered and looked to the skies. The rebels got a bit of a reprieve from Assad's firepower. Now the Syrians know they have months to focus on the real fight--killing rebels and civilians.
Assad honors the WMD deal by going on offense:
Syrian warplanes and artillery bombarded rebel suburbs of the capital on Sunday after the United States agreed to call off military action in a deal with Russia to remove President Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. ...
Syrian rebels, calling the international focus on poison gas a sideshow, dismissed talk the arms pact might herald peace talks and said Assad had stepped up an offensive with ordinary weaponry now that the threat of U.S. air strikes had receded. ...
"It's a clever proposal from Russia to prevent the attacks," one Assad supporter told Reuters from the port of Tartous, site of a Russian naval base. "Russia will give us new weapons that are better than chemical weapons," he added. "We are strong enough to save our power and fight the terrorists."
An opposition activist in Damascus echoed disappointment among rebel leaders: "Helping Syrians would mean stopping the bloodshed," he said. Poison gas is estimated to have killed only hundreds of the more than 100,000 dead in a war that has also forced a third of the population to flee their homes since 2011.
And what will we do? Strike while sacred diplomacy is beginning?
This deal and Assad's ability to focus on the rebels doesn't mean that Assad has turned the corner and will defeat the rebels. Rebel morale has taken a hit and government morale is boosted, but the fact remains that Assad' forces are bleeding out all over the battle area, as I've blogged about earlier. And while both sides obviously replace losses, morale can't be good in Assad's military.
According to former head of IDF military intelligence Amos Yadlin, "Syria, the country with the strongest armed forces among all of Israel’s enemies, is in the midst of a tiring civil war that is depleting its military’s strength, readiness, and morale."
And how long can Assad keep up the pace of his fight (and losses)?
By 2010 it was estimated that of the country's population of over 22.6 million, 5 million were males fit for military service. Each year around 250,000 reached age 19, which was when the 18-month conscription period [as of 2012] began. The Alawis, who number about 1,350,000, constitute Syria's largest religious minority, but only about 6 percent of the population. Thus it might be believed that there were somewhat over 300,000 Alawite males fit for military service, with a further 15,000 reaching military service age each year.
So despite the morale effects, Assad's forces are going to be hard pressed if the rebels don't crack soon. Indeed, the morale problem for Assad's forces who may think they see the light at the end of the tunnel could be all the greater if the rebels don't crack.
So even as Assad continues to fight the war despite the WMD side show that he wants to be the center ring of the entire circus that President Obama is directing, we must continue to fight the real war against Assad's Baathist regime.
Will we have the brains to keep supporting the rebels? Or is this just the remnants of past actions that will soon end?
The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.
This news predates our glorious triumph at Geneva, of course. So I fear that the orders have gone out to halt the flow of weapons. I hope not. If we can keep the rebels going, they will break Assad's forces even as we talk about WMD.
This deal isn't necessarily a fatal blow to our national interests and reputation if the end result is fewer WMD out there by the time Assad's regime falls despite the best efforts of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah to save Assad.
But this requires our government to keep their eye on the ball and remember that chemical warheads don't kill people--bloodthirsty dictators and their minions who order chemical warhead use kill people.
UPDATE: Remember, the threat of US overt intervention was minimal. We were speaking of unbelievably small strikes and Congress has shown no inclination to back use of force in defiance of public opinion overwhelmingly eager to stay out.
So while it is valid to speak of this deal as a victory for Assad in the short run, the main threat to Assad is internal and continues:
A deal with Russia on chemical weapons may be a "win" for President Obama but only in the narrowest sense. He managed to avoid a war he desperately did not want. But with the near-obsessive focus on chemical-weapons use, the core issues have been pushed to the side. These were always more or less the same -- a regime bent on killing and terrorizing its own people and a brutal civil war spilling over into the rest of the region, fanning sectarian strife and destabilizing Syria's neighbors.
For his part, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is effectively being rewarded for the use of chemical weapons, rather than "punished" as originally planned. He has managed to remove the threat of U.S. military action while giving very little up in return. Obscured in the debate of the past few weeks is that chemical weapons were never central to the Syrian regime's military strategy. It doesn't need to use chemical weapons. In other words, even if the regime does comply with inspections (which could drag on for months if not years), it will have little import for the broader civil war, which Assad remains intent on winning.
Yes, this is as I've written. Most narrowly, chemical weapons intended to deter US attack are still functioning to deter US attack--but in a different way by stringing out a disarmament agreement. If Assad defeats the rebels, he can rebuild whatever he has given up.
The key remains the rebellion that has already ripped away large chunks of Syrian territory from Assad's control and which has ripped apart Assad's military which must be reeling. Remember when we worried about our too frequent rotations of units in Iraq? Assad's forces are in for the duration or until they die. And for an estimated 44,000, death is their ticket home.
If we demonstrate to the rebels by continuing to arm and train them that we have not turned our back on them, and that the WMD deal is just a sideshow that at least keeps this terror weapon at bay, the rebels will continue to chew up Assad's forces and break the regime's morale.
I'm trying hard not to simply type away in frustration at the adminsitration's actions and consider how this might work out well for us. I think we could still make things work out for the best. I never considered direct intervention by us decisive anyway and always thought supporting the rebels was the way to go. I still think that so ruling our our intervention isn't fatal.
Sadly, ultimate victory depends on the same people who've masterminded this diplomatic clusterfuck having the wisdom to see that the Assad regime itself is the problem that must be solved, which will weaken Iran and Hezbollah, and push Russia out of the Middle East a little bit more.
UPDATE: Again, as long as we don't lose focus on supporting acceptable rebels in order to defeat Assad and prepare for a post-Assad intra-rebel fight to defeat the jihadis, the WMD agreement can be used to our advantage.
If we insist that implementation means periodic grounding of all Syrian air traffic to allow UN overflights, we'll turn this agreement that Syria is celebrating as a victory into an added handicap. If we insist on Syrian ground operation halts while UN ground convoys of inspectors travel around, we'll further shield the rebels and hurt government efforts to snuff out the rebellion.
UPDATE: If you don't believe this humble blogger (via Instapundit):
But this defeat is not irreversible, if US policy is still to get rid of Assad. Whether from internal dissension within the regime, pressure from rebels, or a combination of both, Assad can still go down. That would turn a diplomatic defeat into a real world win. Obama would make his point, and Putin would be left playing air guitar. ...
So if the administration still believes that US interests would be served by the overthrow of an inept and brutal dictator who has violated one of the most fundamental taboos in international life and who is strategically linked with America’s most dangerous opponent in the Middle East, then the road forward is clear. Under cover of the deal with Russia, the US administration will encourage and perhaps, from far in the rear and in relatively quiet ways, assist the Saudis and others who see the overthrow of Assad as the next step in the process of containing Iran.
So how smart is our diplomacy?
UPDATE: Welcome whoever is hitting this post a lot. My two statistical resources don't tell me who is linking here but one tells me a bunch of people are viewing the post.
