The Arab Spring

Sun Tzu, art of war, give your enemy a chance to escape, etc etc.

Indeed, it's one of the oldest tricks in the book: the Hope Spot.

edited 29th Nov '16 2:03:03 PM by TheHandle

For a similar reason, don't commit extremely public atrocities. It makes surrender impossible (for both sides).

And that is why you place a minefield on the escape route.

It's not about the fighters, it's about the civilians. The fighters need to surrender so that they don't *all* die, including the people they're ostensibly trying to protect.

It's a terrible situation, don't get me wrong, and Assad should hang for all that he's done, but that's not the situation on the ground now.

I wasn't talking just about the fighters, I'm pretty sure that Assad intends to murder all the civilians as well, or at least that's what the people believe.

He's persisted with chemical weapons even after giving up his Sarin stock. (Of course we don't know for 100% sure whether he gave it all away, or whether there were reserves he no longer controlled; but I've not seen reports that it's been used since so it's basically irrelevant.)

The indiscriminate attacks with Chlorine on heavily populated areas have resulted in civilian casualties. This sort of conduct does not suggest that he will spare civilians in any purge he might undertake of a captured city.

Thus, if I was there, I'd probably also think that surrendering to Assad's forces, even if you're a civilian, does not improve your odds of survival.

Aleppo is almost a classic depiction of a pyhrric victory for Assad. He gets to have half a city, and its not entirely a given that he can prevent insurgency, even if he can now end the ability of rebels to hold territory there outright.

Even if Assad wins (and he probably will), he'll be winning a shattered and exhausted country which millions have fled, millions are internally displaced, and millions hate everything about his government. He'll have to rebuild infrastructure, stitch his government back together, destroy ISIS, and restore Syria's reputation abroad with almost every country that's not Russia, and he'll probably fail, sending his country into a tailspin that ends with more revolts, more wars, and the further brutalization of the country spearheaded by his successors.

Agreed except for the part on reputation. Except for the Sunni Arab world and the West, the rest of the world is either supportive of him or apathetic toward him.

But he's still boss! Worth It!

That is probably all he is really after. He would see Syria burn, if he could be king of the ashes.

Assad's thought processes are completely detached from reality at this point. Which is why I don't think he'll get to be king for long - he's pissed both us and Iran too many times with his retarded antics for him too keep his position once things calm down and a proper transfer of power can be organised.

edited 30th Nov '16 8:08:38 AM by KnitTie

My money is on it going to either Soheil or Zahreddine afterwards, if Russia and Iran want someone charismatic to create cohesion. Both are considered war heroes among pro-govt types.

Of course, they could also go to the nameless pencil pusher route, which is also not a bad idea.

By the way, speaking of possible leaders of the post-Arab Spring world, it seems General Haftar (de facto leader of the eastern Libya faction in the current civil war there) is asking Moscow for help defeating Daesh.

....even though Daesh is now reduced to a few blocks in Sirte.

But think about the publicity and the suck-up points!

And the fact that he probably wants their help to take over all of Libya in exchange for becoming a client of Moscow. Given that the UN-backed government doesn't have the blessing of the eastern faction nor all of the former western faction (there was an attempted coup a few weeks ago), there may not even be much debate on the matter. Europe doesn't want Libya to devolve into Syria-levels of violence, and the US has long since stopped publically caring about the political situation there.

Kremlin asks Turkey to explain Erdogan's remark about toppling Assad

"Fooled you!"

What explanation? It's pretty clear to everybody was "there to topple Assad" means.

Did buddy boy really think he could pull one over on the Russians? Really?

I'd like to see him try though.

Just as long as Turkey shoots first, I'd rather not die defending the Sultan.

edited 30th Nov '16 8:03:26 PM by Rationalinsanity

Hey, anyone with good knowledge of military history know the last time we had four distinct factions fighting over one city at the same time? Al-Bab is looking increasingly like thats what is gonna happen.

Some time during the Lebanese Civil War? I can think of three way fights during the breakup of Yugoslavia, maybe something in East Timor? I'm just trying to think of conflicts with four distinct sides like this, three is easy with foreign intervention but four is hard to think of.

There was a bunch of cases during the Russian Civil war, where you had the Reds, the Whites, the other Whites who hated the first ones and the marauding Greens. Though I don't think that they were all fighting over the same city at the same time.

What sides are there in Al-Bab, if I may ask?

Turkey (with rebels), ISIS, Assad (with Hez, Russia and Iran) and the Kurds (maybe with the West).