For those of you with an interest in strategic security and geopolitics, here are two items just in that I think are worth your time: first, a surprising comment from NightWatch on the situation in Syria; second, an analysis by George Friedman of the stalemate in Afghanistan.
See also this overview of the “Arab spring” from STRATFOR.
3 Comments
NightWatch identified one item correctly, that the information coming out of Syria is hazy, often biased, and contradictory. There is no doubt that “the truth of the security situation is difficult to deduce from open source materials.” Other than that obvious point NightWatch couldn’t have been more wrong in its assessment.
I spent two months living in Syria and working with the Greek Orthodox Christian community within Damascus. While it was always very hard to discern whether the constant outpouring of love towards Assad were a true convictions or a result of fear due to the large network of informants, what was crystal clear was that the Christian community were only second to the Alawites in their support of Assad. It is not hard to see why this is the case. During my time in Syria I went to multiple ceremonies celebrating peace and harmony between the different religious factions within Syria. Syrians were extremely fond on reminding us visitors again and again that unlike Lebanon, Syria has never had any religious violence. (This is clearly false, the expulsion and killing of the Jewish community with Damascus being just one example of religious violence in Syria) A case of one doth protest too much. Within the religious minorities in Syria there is a constant fear of sectarian violence. The reports coming from the Christian community should be considered just as suspect and biased as the ones coming from the Sunni opposition members. The fact that NightWatch fails to see this is a glaring error.
Even worse is the contention that Russia and China vetoed the UN resolution because they understood the situation on the ground better than the other voting members. While I have no doubt the Russia and China’s intelligence service is top quality their UN vote is no evidence that the situation on the ground in peachy. Both Russia and China have consistently blocked UN resolutions that condemned and/or sanctioned governments that attacked their own citizens because Russia and China don’t want to set the precedent that the international community ought to have a say in stopping governments when they brutalized their own citizens. Why? Because they both do exactly that.
A small note on the STRATFOR overview on the “Arab Spring”, George Friedman loses a lot of his credibility when he makes the statement that Arab Spring started in Egypt. I guess Tunisia doesn’t count? Nonetheless, Reva and George get completely right by focusing not on the face of government but on the regime as a system.
Interesting comment.
It’s certainly easy to understand why any non-Sunnis would make common cause with the ruling minority Alawites: if the lid comes off, it is likely to go badly for all of them. It is also easy to understand why in Assad’s heyday there would have been ostentatious displays of harmony, so as not to make the regime edgy.
You are quite right that the non-Sunnis have an interest in seeing the Assad regime remain in power, which in turn means that they will have an interest in deflecting international concern (and intervention).
I rather expect that Mr. McCreary at NightWatch is well aware that everyone has vested interests here. The Sunnis are obviously going to make the carnage seem as bad as can be; everyone else can be counted on to spin things the other way. I think NightWatch’s only point here is that there are enough conflicting accounts to cast doubt on the monolithically one-sided story being presented in Western media.
I agree with you about Russia and China insofar as I don’t think they believe things on the ground to be “peachy”. Russia in particular has deep connections to Syria, and surely does not want to lose its Mediterranean base at Tartus. Syria is also an important weapons client. If a Sunni regime becomes ascendant in Syria, they will probably have Chechnya, which is over 90% Sunni Muslim, on their minds. So Russia is all for Assad.
Syria has also been a bit of a game-piece as far as China’s relations with Russia are concerned, and again, a Sunni regime will have some things to think about, such as the treatment of the Sunni Uighurs, as it reflects on its new attitude toward China.
So both China and Russia would prefer the status quo (though Russia has a lot more at stake than China does). There is certainly more to this veto than Mr. McCreary suggested.
As for George Friedman, it’s a safe bet he knows where the “Arab Spring” started. Probably just a careless moment.
“A small note on the STRATFOR overview on the “Arab Spring”, George Friedman loses a lot of his credibility when he makes the statement that Arab Spring started in Egypt. I guess Tunisia doesn’t count?”
Bear in mind, “Facebook Revolution.”
Not totally disagreeing mind – but I would hope one would consider the difference[s].
The West tends to view things through a different prism. Especially the Democracy Bestowing US over the past decade or so.