Russian General: Why Assad can't win the war in Syria

Does it really come as a surprise? Far more powerful U.S army couldn't win in Afghanistan or Iraq and eventually withdrew with their tails between their legs.

As long as Saudi Arabia/Qatar financially support those Sunni radical fanatics in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East there is not going to be peace. Of course, the USA has got to stop selling arms and providing training to those religious fanatics. The USA ought to stop sucking up to Saudis.

US-Saudi push for regime change arms terror groups, poses threat to Asia

Shared Wahhabi ideology

This should come as no surprise, given IS and Saudi Arabia share the same intolerant Wahhabi ideology. As William McCants, author of The ISIS Apocalypse said, the official religion of Saudi Arabia is a ‘brand of ultraconservative Islam [that] is nearly identical to that of the Islamic State.”

The former imam of Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mosque in Mecca corroborates this: “We have the same beliefs as ISIS (IS). We share their ideology, but we express it in a more refined way.”

In fact, when IS was looking for textbooks for its schools in Raqqa, it printed copies of official Saudi textbooks found online...

http://atimes.com/2016/09/us-saudi-push-for-regime-change-arms-terror-groups-poses-threat-to-asia/

 

Israel the most friendly country, after US of course. In Israel high technologies, they get water from a stone.

 

Russia and Iran do have somewhat divergent interests and attitudes in Syria, even if both support Assad.

For Iran, Syria's importance used to lie in the fact that it served as the bridge to Hezbollah and was a member of the 'axis of resistance' to Israel and to US/Israeli hegemony in the region. More recently, given the more blatantly anti-Iran and anti-Shia forces that have emerged, Syria has also become important in serving as a barrier to these groups and their sponsors gaining even more power and influence in the region.

For Russia, Syria was important as a possible client state which offered them a base in the Middle East. Since in the post communist era, Russia itself had not settled on exactly how much resistance it wanted to put into US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East or elsewhere outside of "near Russia", the Russians used to be less comfortable being allied to any state that was openly resisting such hegemony. Indeed, the Russians maintain rather cordial and some would say friendly relations with Israel! At the same time, while the Russians certainly see it also in their interests to check the spread of Wahabi inspired, Jihadist groups which loathe Iran and the Shia, they are nonetheless less interested in taking Iran's side in the Saudi-led Sunni alliance that has been formed against Iran. There are plenty more Sunni states in the Middle East than Shia ones and many of these Sunni states are willing to offer the Russians some lucrative deals and incentives to make sure they don't come too close to Iran.

In a civil war which involves a lot of actors, including an assortment of foreign ones, some of whom are quite committed to the fight and tend to believe they have a lot riding on it, there will be many tense moments, reversals, and difficult periods to navigate. At the same time, each success will claim a thousand fathers while failures will remain the proverbial orphans. Whether in success or failure, or during times when the resolve to fight is being tested, there will be different responses and attitudes in Moscow as opposed to Tehran, given the different interests and stakes involved. And that makes a genuine Russo-Iranian alliance in Syria very difficult.

Otherwise, in theory, the Syrian civil war could be brought to an end even quickly if Russia and Iran worked together in earnest and without any suspicion that either would back-stab the other. But neither side, not Iran nor certainly Russia, is willing to work all that closely with the other. For now, they have a loose alliance in Syria to help Assad but they don't even coordinate their moves on a regular basis nor follow the same script or objectives. Hence, while this support is critical to preventing the fall of Assad, it is not enough to turn the tide completely to his favor either.

 

Exactly. That the Russian people support Putin as much as they do is not down to some mythical Russian state-sponsored propaganda that we're told - through propaganda and lies - exists. I don't see propaganda when I read Russian news. They're actually quite good about adhering to journalistic standards and remaining impartial.

Putin is popular because he does his job well and has done a lot to turn Russia around from where it was post-USSR with the oligarchs stealing everything.

 

No not really. Although in Afghanistan and Iraq it would have been possible with a bit of innovation.

That is quite a popular belief but as far I've been able to gather only a small fraction of IS income actually comes from outside donors and they are private as opposed to state organisations.

Just because two cultures share the same ideology doesn't mean that are automatically friends.

 

The entire organization known as ISIS is a product of US/Israeli/Saudi policies, first started under the Bush administration whose contours were outlined in Hersh's article in the New Yorker (the Redirection) and which were later pursued during Hillary's tenure as SoS, even if the actions taken by ISIS aren't necessarily the ones planned or exactly as expected. As for its funding, the funding that mattered and matters is the vast sums of money which poured into Syria from outside, including from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, which found its way into the coffers of ISIS even if the group was not directly being funded by them.

 

OP

Of course Assad can't win on his own. From the very beginning he's been like a man alone surrounded by starving wolves. He has saved his country from becoming a Caliphate - and one day that fact will be recognised and acknowledged by all the siren voices - and I wouldn't be surprised if, on that day, he bowed out ASAP.

 

We took it 50 years ago and it's our since, rich or barren makes no diffrence, it was important that such high group overlooking our counrty will not be in the hands of our enemies and thank God we were smart enough to take it back then, water too makes an important intrest but I was talking about now, the country once known as Syria broke apart and while there are parties that want a piece of it for their own security Israel is not one of them.

 

So the stories about Shia oppression in Iraq are lies ? you's do well to seperate the powers arming the sides for their reasons and the ppl that actually fight for their reasons.

 

The stories are sometimes lies, sometimes involve isolated cases, and in other cases revolve around the kind of stories that you find in other similar situations. They have little to do with the underlying issues that tore Iraq or Syria apart, even if some of the actions taken by the Shia were in reprisals of acts being perpetuated by the Saudi and company backed groups in Iraq meant to widen the gulf between the two communities.

Iraq and Syria were torn apart by a set of policies which were deliberately pursued in the name of "containing Iran". In Iraq, the Redirection took the US to plot a counter-weight to the very government it had installed in Iraq, taking ex Saddam officers and Sunni recruits and arming them and creating a rather powerful military organization called the Sons of Iraq (which had 100,000 well equipped men under arms and was seen rightly by Iraq's prime minister, Nouri Maleki, as a threat to himself and to the Iraqi government). In more clandestine fashion, the Redirection saw the Saudis and company (with US knowledge and backing) fund and encourage other, even more notorious groups and individuals in carrying out attacks and mayhem against the Shia and the Iraqi government. For the US, the choice for the Iraqi government was to either accept being a complete US vassal with US troops on the ground to call the shots, and with a well armed Sunni army there to put them on quite a leash, or to be left to deal with the consequences of US withdrawal. The Iraqi government under Nouri Al Maleki (who was ironically installed in power to replace Jaffari because the latter was seen as being pro Iran) gambled that it was better off not putting all its eggs in the US basket and began moving towards Iran as well. Good thing it did, since Iran was the one country that saved Iraq from being completely overrun by ISIS.

As for Syria, the story is similar. Assad was given a choice to move out of the axis of resistance and distance himself from Iran/Hezbollah with Israel even dangling the possibility of returning to Golan to Syria as an incentive. When he refused (or, rather, took his time to decide what he wanted to do), the US accelerated the policies they had started under the Redirection, funding opposition groups and encouraging an "Arab Spring" in Syria as well. At the same time, with the Saudis and Qataris funding the program, the Turks created safe havens for Syrian officers and soldiers to defect from Syria and form a militia of their own, while before long all sorts of other groups and hands joined and plunged Syria into civil war while the US and the west insisted "Assad must go". Again it was Iran that saved Assad in those critical days, although the truth is that besides the geopolitical issues for, supporting Assad was also the right thing to do because Iran knew well that Assad could have avoided all the mess he faced if he had just accepted to distance himself from Iran.

Ironically, in these bizarre, Byzantine like, tales of political backstabbing and intrigue on the diplomatic stage, there was a time when even the Russians were recruited by the US/Israel to serve as interlocutors to convince Assad to ditch Iran. The Russians tried, because (and therein is the underlying tension between Russia and Iran on Syria) their goals and priorities in Syria are different. The Russians aren't particularly interested in the axis of resistance (they should be, since the forces of US hegemony will ultimately have them as its biggest target) but were simply looking to have an ally of sorts in the region giving them a naval base and helping them regain some of their lost prestige.

 

Fine, its a diffrent angle but I accept it.

OK but you started from a position of "resistance" so in name of objectivity you should accept for "us" (US/Israel - even thou the EU is much more significant than Israel part) we "resist" your "resistance" and have probebly same goals on contrast, point being in a civil war we can find excuses to fight along either side rebels or leader its really about intersts not legality since the country was'nt Democratic and now its torn.
The accusation on US/Israel have started the "Spring" is without base, has no evidance, IMO it just spread as it did anywhere else it only got the attention of the West when Homes casualties increased and Tanks were brought in, since that point - sorry but it's a point of view, no side can claim it has the only right to rule. fighting a dictator sounded good to Western ears regardless of the allies that leader had, Mubarak was a Western ally - perhaps the only Arab leader and he fell very fast with no support, so I dont think it was planned, Obama is many things but he wont plan Chaos.

IMO, its just a matter of time to make official that Syria is broken to autonoic districts, better do it now and save lives, no side will claim victory it's just an horrific waste of lives.

 

My accusation is not that the US started the Arab Spring, but worked to make sure the Arab Spring would not only focus on US allies but would catch Assad and wipe him from power as well. Although the clandestine operations to fund Assad opponents actually predated the Arab Spring, the atmosphere at the time gave the US further fodder.

 

Saudi Arabia isn't funding ISIS.. ISIS has carried out 29 suicide bombings in the kingdom in the past 2 years.

- - - Updated - - -

The conflict in Syria began in the small town of Deraa because school boys were writing graffiti .. Assad was severe with them and pro-democracy protests broke out rapidly all over the country.

Assad had some protesters shot and they were off to the races.

 

I have already explained the facts as I have see them, and as can be gleaned from credible reports and sources as it relates to what caused Syria to fall into such turmoil and civil war.

With respect to Saudi Arabia and whether it funds "ISIS", that is neither here or there. In the heyday of turmoil that the Saudis wanted to cause for the Shia government in Iraq, they funded all sorts of figures and individuals. Many of them drifted into and became ISIS. Same with the US, actually. Never mind the more clandestine operations and funding that went to more notorious figures and groups, the US openly funded, trained and armed the "Sons of Iraq". The Sons of Iraq isn't ISIS and was, indeed, created on the excuse of helping the US fight Al Queda in Iraq. It doesn't matter. Except for a few of the top officers in the Sons of Iraq who had burned all bridges with the folks who became ISIS, the rest of what was once "Sons of Iraq" (including many of its ex Saddam officers) joined ISIS and took the resources and training that had been placed in their hands with them!

In Syria, each of the various countries involved funded their own groups and militia. The Turks and the Qataris worked closer with one group, while the Saudis worked with another one. But the lines between these groups isn't all that set in stone and the money that flowed to them by the Saudis and company found itself moving between them in trade. The fact is that the most powerful of the militia fighting Assad were the Al Nusra front, which was the Al Queda organization in Syria. You give another group working besides them a lot of money, and they will figure how to take a good chunk of it for themselves!

 

The Saudis certainly didn't like Assad because he murdered Rafic Hariri, but they are and have always been opposed to conflict in the region.. They have other fish to fry.

 

This is a pretty succinct but accurate version of how and why Syria was plunged into civil war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html

 

Syria has lost militarily since 1947.. and they have had many coups and counter coups.

 

Its the result of US incompetence in Iraq rather than some pseudo conspiratorial master plan.

I've read that article and its absolute rubbish. It is so full of suppositions, broad statements and no definite facts.

Only about 5% of IS funding comes from outside sources and as I said they are private donations.
Saudi Arabia has more to fear from IS than to gain from them.

 

Assad will never recapture all of Syria. He hasn't even been able to fully take Aleppo in over 5 years.

 

I am confident I know more about the subject than you do, following the issues closely and carefully. And far from being rubbish, the Seymour Hersh article is based on first hand accounts, various documentary sources, and recounts facts that have since been verified by other sources. But you are entitled to your unsubstantiated views.

 

Well that's juvenile.

I'm sorry but it is.

As are you. But I can actually substantiate mine with credible sources.

So far you haven't contested my views

 

Here are some articles on US covert plans to destablize Syria.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-u-s-plan-to-overthrow-syrian-government/4283
Secret U.S. plan to overthrow Syrian government

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1571751,00.html

After Bush:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...wikileaks-show/2011/04/14/AF1p9hwD_story.html
World
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

 

Nothing covert about it.. Israel has been calling for regime change in Syria since 1996 and the PNAC picked it up in 1998.

 

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/01/a-special-relationship/

This is a long piece, which begins by discussing the links between the US and jihadist groups, including what became known as Al Queda, before 9/11 and how those links were more calculated then pretended by Washington some of those links were exposed in the wake of 9/11.

The piece then discusses how the US again jumped into bed with Al Queda and ideologically similar groups as part of the policies Seymour Hersh had already exposed in his article in the New Yorker, called the Redirection.

The policies and programs established under the so-called "Redirection" by the Bush administration in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, continued under the Obama administration ironically with greater focus and determination then before, especially as the US and its ally, Saudi Arabia, calculated on how they could turn the so-called Arab Spring against Iran?

These arms were going to whoever was there to fight Assad. Certainly to Al Queda and its affiliate in Syria, namely Nusra and their allies, Ahrar al-Sham.

But, of course, it wasn't just little Qatar -- who has allied itself with Turkey to carve some independent room for itself within the Saudi dominated so-called GCC -- that was pouring in arms and money into Syria. Pretty much each entity in the anti-Assad coalition formed its own group.

The Saudis, however, wanted to have a group they could control and which wasn't going to be a threat to them. Hence, they began to focus their funding and assistance to other Wahabi groups they formed inside Syria.

As for the US, the piece discusses the chorus of establishment figures and voices which have joined to openly advocate that the US ally itself with Al Queda! They include one of the initial architects of the "Redirection", David Petraeus. Others might find an open alliance with a "brand" responsible for 9/11 a bit distasteful so they are interested in re-branding the same ideology and attitudes and supporting the re-branded groups.

The consequences of all this, of course, is predictable enough.

 

It's not like he tried to expose the DNC. I doubt he'll get the Seth Rich treatment.