Should be noted that it also gives the rebels time to reorganise and rearm. In fact, given how disorganised and harried they are and the weapons they are receiving gradually over time, a breather might be even more useful for them. Although the Islamist groups can also use that time to consolidate their control, sadly.
I find it hard to believe Assad would accept any condition where he wasn't in control, or his Alawite supporters would accept any condition where they don't continue to have overall power. They believe it's a matter of survival to them.
edited 20th Sep '13 2:24:40 AM by betaalpha
The Syrian govt is claiming that it will declare a cease-fire if talks are resumed in Geneva. If that actually happens, it's fairly significant. By conceding that they dont believe they can defeat the rebels, they are effectively giving up their claim to rebel held territory. That's a pretty significant propaganda defeat.
Something has happened behind the scenes in Damascus.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.There's simply a point beyond which a regime has lost legitimacy and can never really re-obtain it. Brutality works to actively stop revolts before you've passed that threshold, but afterwards force only works in its most direct and naked form, in that you're just going to have to keep shooting until everyone who disagrees with you is dead or you are out of power. Syria has reached the latter phase, and Assad is smart enough to know it, and to also take advantage of the huge amount of doubt and dissension amongst the international community to buy a peace that won't see him end up like Qaddafi
I wonder. The statement at the BBC didnt have Assads name on it. The spokesperson from Syria claimed to be representing the "Government". Has Assad unofficially been shunted aside? Are there factions within the regime that have concluded that he has failed so badly its time to cut their losses? I'm just speculating here, but it will be interesting to see of the regime is serious about starting talks again.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.![]()
![]()
Agreed, though that might come back to bite him. By having the Islamists split off, it becomes easier for the world to determine who can do a deal and who can't, and thus tells them who they can support.
Bashar al Assad actually has very little in the way of personal power, to the point where he's always been considered more of a front man. However, the deputy PM doesn't even have the illusion of power, so I'd imagine he has consent from The Powers That Be. Probably the elders, since I doubt Maher would want to stop, bloodthirsty dog that he is.
It certainly ain't cuz Bashar failed though. Guy is being seen as a right genius by his supporters. That and this being an existential conflict, they can't cut losses.
Seriously, I wanna trope this conflict....
edited 20th Sep '13 10:40:14 AM by FFShinra
No specific link. Just what I've been seeing in article comments and such. And I grant that its not the best method to determine anything, but even his enemies (in the form of the GOP and other Obama critics) are painting Assad as Machiavelli reincarnated, so that helps with perception and propaganda. No way the regime gets rid of that kind of good publicity, especially when they do hold the momentum on the battlefield.
I dont know. A lot of what you mentioned seems like old fashioned propaganda to me- it's been relatively effective up to now, but it probably doesnt reflect any sort of reality behind the scenes. By sitting down with the rebels, they are in fact risking all that. They must be in more desperate straights than has been reported if they want a ceasefire so badly...
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Putin is Machiavelli. Assad is still his student, in a way.
Tensions are brewing between southerners and the central government in Yemen.
![]()
It's not true in the sense they "love" him. They know full well what kind of monster he is. They just fear the other guys more. They won't sideline him when he's still useful for propaganda purposes.
Aye, thanks. Seems AQAP is on the move there too. From Reuters
I have seen this elsewhere as well
Syrian rebels turning on each other. The Big tent is collapsing.
Assad likely knows this and could very likely sitting back and letting the rebels tear each other up with plans to whack the loser. Or even maybe "assist" one side over the other win them over to his side. Who knows.
Of course Assad could also think like this. "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
edited 20th Sep '13 4:33:08 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?There was something on the BBC recently about some border towns having been captured by the Islamist opposition - from the secular opposition.
This is unsustainable. Well, war is unsustainable to begin with, but the stalemate is also unsustainable now that one side is self-destructing.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I have to agree. For instance, when I read about what Aum Shinrikyo were able to do in Tokyo in 1995 after some (relatively) careful preparation, I couldn't help wondering if the time and resources they spent were more or less than the total that a large terrorist organisation spends annually on suicide attacks and car bombs.
If maintaining a steady campaign of small-scale bombing is more expensive than something like the Sarin attack in the Tokyo Metro in 1995 the question a terrorist organisation should be asking itself is whether its goals would be better served by something more elaborate than a car bomb. The point is to make the enemy (and the neutrals) afraid, and I can tell you that the Tokyo subway attack, though I don't remember it, has me much more scared than, say, 9/11. (The latter resulted in a far larger number of casualties but the potential in the Tokyo subway attack was vast and only avoided because of the poor execution of the otherwise rather well-laid plan.)
But this is getting off-topic (and into a territory I don't particularly want to explore.)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Best Of: Well the Tokyo attack had something in common with the extremist terrorist groups. The materials used are not always the best quality. The chemical agent wasn't refined enough and was therefore less effective then it could have been. There were actually two chemical weapon attack.
But you do make a good point about the use of resources.
Who watches the watchmen?Depends on the flavor of the Jihadi. That's certainly the Talibanesque mindset, but other groups (particularly the original AQ) have shown that they think for the long term. For example, getting the US bogged down in the middle east as a way to hurt their economy was the ultimate aim of 9/11, rather than the act itself.
Anyway, curious how long it takes for the actual ceasefire plan to get ready, since I doubt anyone is gonna put down their guns yet.
Okay so that Deputy PM who said the conflict was in stalemate? He's saying now that the Guardian misquoted him.
.....which is entirely possible. But obviously, and more likely, the regime was displeased.
It's mentioned in brief in this BBC article, which is more focused on the rebel infighting. [1]

BBC:
The Syrian government has declared the conflict a stalemate and will now be amenable to a ceasefire and talks.
More seriously, what does Assad really have to lose with this offer? At the very least, the odds of all members of the opposition accepting it are somewhat south of "snowball's chance in hell", so when they ultimately say "screw that" he comes out as the reasonable one and they're the uncooperative assholes.note
edited 20th Sep '13 12:11:00 AM by Nohbody
All your safe space are belong to Trump