Would Assad's Best Option be to Attack First?

Syria is in many ways between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand it is barely managing to suppress the US/Saudi led insurgency. It is the US falling back-on tried and tested methods, as with Afghanistan (remember the Mujahedeen?), Iraq, and Libya. Using proxies is a US-tradition. That was what the Bay of Pigs was about and why it was a massacre - the Americans refused their own military support.

On the other hand, it is moribund for lack of immediate and viable options other than trying to defeat the insurgents. There is no other game in town for Assad and the Syrian government. This means that traditional avenues of choice are limited.

Diplomatically Syria is essentially an outcast, with its only allies coming from outside the Western US-led 'coalition' of powers. This however, is a critical point: Syria's friends can be increasingly, and are America's competitors for global power. Countries such as Russia, China and Iran view the stability and friendship of Syria as an important domino in the geopolitical game the US is playing. Syria's only diplomatic hope - which bleeds into other areas such as military and economic sectors - is that other external actors and states can coalesce into a viable counter-force to the Western US-led one.

If Assad is to consider what is to be done about the US/UK threats of intervention, then he needs to realise those facts and possibilities. Diplomatic change tends to be evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Only regime change and total defeat typically leads to serious and effective diplomatic change of a scale that Syria needs.

Timelines are critical in any decision-making process as to what Syria's options are. An attack within two days does not leave much scope for creating a coterie of allies. An attack in two weeks give Assad a slim window of opportunity to arrange his ducks in a line. Those ducks namely, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia and China. other possible ducklings may well be other members of the BRICS nations: Brazil, India, and South Africa. And remember, the BRICS nations are vying to be competitors or counterweights to a US-world. In addition, each BRICS member is the leader in it's own region, and thus can call in favours from their own friends and allies.

Syria has to work the diplomatic lines massively, between now and whenever the attack is to happen. I would set a deadline for diplomatic arraignment at around about the beginning of September. That gives almost two weeks to get set for war.

Right now we are seeing what is called the "signalling phase" of the conflict. It is during this part of the conflict that signals, by way of political statement, public demonstrations, media reporting, state propaganda, diplomatic statements, economic treaties, political events, leadership travel events, meetings, troop mobilisation and movement, hardware movements and hardening etc. are being made.

US and UK (as well as their mid-east regional allies) decision-makers will want to accelerate the move toward war as much as possible as that limits the signalling phase and possibility of policy vacillation or indecision. Statements by them and their media allies (such as CNN, FoxNews, BBC) are part of the signalling phase, and as such indicate the slide toward ignoring external signalling. This is good news and bad for Assad who should be arraigning his own allies into a strong defense. The speed of slide toward an attack may be too fast for Syria to respond to. The ignorance of the western decision-makers may be caused by "group-think" and lead them into a huge mistake in any hurried attack.

Assad has to play dumb, play weak, play sorry - without accepting culpability of-course (I'd be shocked if Assad used chemical weapons...) - to delay any possible attack from the US, UK, Turkey, KSA, Jordan etc, etc. He must do this to allow time to hold an international conference of leading powers opposed to what the US and others are doing. So this "Damascus Conference" should include the leaders (no less will suffice) of Russia, China, Brasil, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa to discuss, negotiate and sign a Mutual Defence Treaty with Syria.

For me that is Syria's only hope, and if the US really wants to keep knocking down geopolitical dominoes, then let them take Syria down at their peril. But it may already be too late.

Originally posted by WashingtonDeathCult
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Pre-emptive attack - Syrian gov't may well decide to use the U.S. policy as their own, for the reasons you've cited.

They may be falsely accused of initiating hostilities against U.S. forces even if they chose not to respond militarily to a U.S. first strike, given the controlled U.S. media.

The ultimate consequences for Syria, and perhaps the whole world, are going to be terrible in any case of direct U.S./Syrian military confrontation.

A big question in my mind is how would we really know the truth anyway?

To answer your initial question, if in Syria's position, considering all, having certain capabilities, I would lean toward using U.S. policy (Pre-emptive attack) as my own.

edit on 27-8-2013 by WashingtonDeathCult because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by olaru12

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He has no 'best option'. Syria is to be the battleground for WWIII. Everyone around the world is involved. Syria. Russia. China. USA. France. UK. Saudi Arabia. Egypt. Iran. Muslim Brotherhood. Etc etc. There is no 'best option' ... it's all going to blow up ..... and it's going to be a mess no matter what he does.

FF, I think you are accurate in this assessment. But describing the Apocalypse as a "mess" seems a bit optimistic!!

In my opinion.....we have all seen other countries and leaders fall....Assad knows its coming. If I was in Assad;s shoes.....like it or not, right or not, moral or not, all these things and considerations will have to be thrown out the window.

1) For the good of the Arab world, I beleive Assad should sacrifice Syria, but not in the way most of you think.

- Pre-emtively launch every gas/bio weapon he has at Israel, either from Syria or the many proxies in Lebanon/Palestine and hope it kills everyone, especially those with the finger on the button in Israel (big ask).
- At the same time launch missiles/rockets at all the Western Allies in the region. Saudi/Qatar/Jordan/Turkey
- This would also have to be co-ordinated with Iran at the same time. Who could close the straight of Hormuz "for good" and support Assad by directing attacks against US/Allied bases within the region aswell as helping to decimate the Saudi Kingdom.

Results.......Israel wiped 80% death toll....main aim of Syria/Iranian attack

Straight of Hormuz closed for a very long time.

Oil processing/transport facilties in the region destroyed

Yes, it will throw the entire Arab world backwards 100 years, but it will also seriously hurt the West economically at the very least.

It will no doubt bring a response from Israeli subs, US itself and others in nuclear form.

The alternative.....cop it in the rear, get hung up to dry based upon false evidence ans succumb to the NWO.


From a Syrian/Iranian point of view.........I beleive a massive co-ordinated pre-emptive attack on the entire region is really their only chance of hurting the enemy and "maybe" somehow surviving......alebit difficultly.

What a mess!

reply to post by Melbourne_Militia


*redacted*


Suffice to say, that if Assad really wanted to, he could collapse most of Europe. So let us hope that doesn't happen, eh?

Assads best option have his missles ready, and targeted. And when if the US launches its missles...at the same moment Assad launches his....but at his real enemys. Target the insurgents in ways he could not get away with now.
And blame the Americans for poor targeting.
He looses some weapons caches and has a free for all on the insurgents.

Kinda sounds like an overall win for him I see

Originally posted by Xcouncil=wisdom
Assads best option have his missles ready, and targeted. And when if the US launches its missles...at the same moment Assad launches his....but at his real enemys. Target the insurgents in ways he could not get away with now.
And blame the Americans for poor targeting.
He looses some weapons caches and has a free for all on the insurgents.

Kinda sounds like an overall win for him I see

Why would he need missiles aimed at insurgents? Winning a few battles ≠ winning a war.

Could you explain how this would do anything, because it isn't making much sense to me.

reply to post by teachtaire


OK
If he removed a massive amount of the ARMED "protestors" aka insurgents in one swoop....which he cannot do now because he will be charged with crimes against humanity by the UN and those that want him deposed of course (unlike the US who when they bomb the storage facilities and the communities near them) then he will have a much easier time getting his country back in order and quelling this armed rebellion...civil war...uh...protest?

Ya know what...I think I may have jumped into this thread prematurely....like an American president...I didn't have all the info....I saw the headline and just wanted to spout off.

Now the best I can say is
lets have a beer and be buddies



aaaaand now I'll reconsider my position