We warn the Syrians not to use or move chemical weapons. Russia guarantees that Assad won't use or move chemical weapons. And now Britain warns Assad not to use chemical weapons:
Mr Cameron and Mr Obama both agreed "that the use - or threat - of chemical weapons was completely unacceptable and would force them to revisit their approach so far", said the spokesman.
So we have a consensus. No chemical weapons. Like I've said, I don't think Assad could salvage his position by using chemical weapons. And he'd just beg for a UN-blessed intervention. But you never can tell if Assad thinks otherwise. But if his only hope for significant help isn't to be alienated, Assad has to fulfill that Russian guarantee.
But as I've been arguing for a while, Assad can't win the way he is fighting. Something dramatic needs to happen. The rebels are having enough success that I don't think they suddenly collapse from poor morale. Indeed, the danger is far higher that there will be a collapse of the army under the stress of constant combat for a year and a half now.
And I can't imagine a political settlement at this point.
Assad simply needs a better troop-to-population ratio. So either he needs a lot more troops--several hundred thousand--from some source; or he needs to try to control fewer people. I don't see any other militarily feasible answer to his basic problem.
In theory, he could conscript every able-bodied male from the Alawite and allied communities, but he couldn't keep that many people under arms for long without destroying the economy. Counter-insurgencies aren't fast. And training that many people quickly would be tough--even for basic duties like holding strongpoints or patrolling roads.
Iran couldn't possibly send that many.
Russia couldn't possibly send that many.
And the Sunni world is far more likely to send recruits for the rebels. And couldn't possibly send that many, in any case.
I just don't see any alternative but to contract his perimeter. At worst, with what he has, he could retreat to a Rump Alawite state in the coastal mountain region.
Or add a buffer zone to the east encompassing the region from Aleppo to Homs.
Perhaps a southern buffer in the northwestern part of Lebanon would be considered.
Or even my original Core Syria idea of a truncated Syria that extends from Idlib down to the Israeli and Jordanian borders along that main Aleppo to Jordan highway, including Damascus, in order to retain the UN seat as Syria. But that would require more troops than Assad has now. Perhaps a combination of the above sources of security forces could expand Assad's ground forces enough to hold that. But I doubt it now.
I freely admit that such a contraction could be a disaster, in practice. South Vietnam couldn't pull it off in 1975. But it might be the only choice Assad has left.
Settling the question of chemical weapons use is comforting, but it doesn't settle the question of how does Assad possibly win this fight.
UPDATE: Oh, and I meant to also ask what Russia has promised Assad in exchange for making Russia's guarantee valid. I'm thinking the Security Council veto, money, fuel, arms, marines and ships in Tartus, and a paratrooper regiment along the border with Turkey--however short that border might be at the end of the day.
I don't think Russia would have made the guarantee without Assad's pledge not to use chemical weapons since there is no way that Russia could effectively intervene to stop Western intervention if chemical weapons use prompts intervention.
