Army Deserters fight Assad in Syria

"Dozens of soldiers and security forces were gunned down by suspected army defectors in southern Syria, a deadly ambush that comes as President Bashar Assad increasingly appears unable to manage the crisis, activists said Tuesday.

Monday's hours-long clash in the southern province of Daraa came on a particularly bloody day in Syria, with as many as 90 people killed across the country. The brazen attack by the army defectors suggested a new confidence among troops who have sided with the protesters and highlighted the potential for an armed confrontation to escalate."  foxnews

----------------------------------------

How many of you see this as opportunity rather than something to wring your hands over?  pl

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/15/syrian-soldiers-killed-in-clash-with-defectors/#ixzz1dnCZiz4N

 

Comments

[par4]

Russia says "NYET" so far.

[The beaver]

Now, if only they can get hold of Maher al-Assad, the real Assad who is in command of all those killings, violence and bloodshed.

[FB Ali]

I would be very cautious in accepting the term "army defectors" at face value, especially in this context.

Undoubtedly, some army personnel have defected, but a lot of the fighting and killing attributed to them is the work of externally armed rebels and foreign militants injected into the country.

Since the rebellion is being mainly fuelled by the Saudis, the most active and well-armed rebels are likely to be Salafi jihadis.

This is a case where one needs to be very careful about what one wishes for!

[Fred]

Opportunity certainly. What outcome are we willing to live with? What is the likely result if we do nothing?

[Phil Giraldi]

How do we know any of the news about Syria is correct? Much of it comes from defector sources or news services that have decided, like a number of Western and Gulf governments, that Assad must go. The neocons are all in favor of liberating Syria...why? I absolutely defer to Colonel Lang's judgment on this, but I would suggest it is because Syria will then likely break up into its components and no longer be any kind of threat to Israel, just as happened in Iraq. And just like in Iraq the local Christians will be the odd men out.

[jonst]

I don't wring my hands over anything. I don't see this as an "opportunity". I wish the Syrians well in their attempts at overthrowing Assad et al.

I want to focus my attention on my nation. It is in acute condition at the moment.

That is what I think.

[William P. Fitzgerald III]

Pat Lang,

One question deserves another. Opportunity for whom and for what?

WPFIII

[turcopolier]

WPFIII

I put it as a question because I wanted you to answer the question, but since you don't want to - For the US to accomplish its policy goals of regime change and re-alignment in syria. pl

[John Stack]

For the US to accomplish its policy goals of regime change and re-alignment in syria. PL

Do Americans realise that this illegal naked US force in action is frightening and most of the world fears the US . Is this what you want ?.

[FB Ali]

The trouble is, as Cheney-Bush and the neocons found out, regime change is comparatively easy, but it is quite difficult to ensure that the new one is to your liking. And, yes, a new regime leads to realignments, but they may well leave you worse off than before.

Libya could turn out to be similar to Iraq in this respect. And so could Syria.

[turcopolier]

john stack

yoiu do not understand me. I leave it to the elected constitutional government of the US to decide if they want to do this. what I and I believe TTG are saying is that it can be done. the issue of of illegality in what is called international law does not concern me. i am interested in the national interest. pl

[Fred]

FB Ali, "Libya could turn out to be similar to Iraq in this respect."

How so? Certainly Libya will not come under another dictatorship immediately (changing Sunni for Shia) - and one that is directly influenced by Iran?

[Norbert M Salamon]

Colonel:
with due respect Article VI, Clause 2 of The Constitution of the Unitede States of America states that any Treaty [as approved by the Senate- advise and Consent of 2/3 ]is part of the Constitution of the United States.

I find your stetement:

"in what is called international law does not concern me".
IMHO this is contradictory to an Officer who has taken an Oath to Defend the Constitution.

[turcopolier]

nms

What treaty are uou referring to? We have no treaty with Syria. If the US were to intervene in the way that I suggest it would obtain a UN resolution or some such thing as we did in Libya. My remark that I, personally, am not interested in international law is meaningless in terms of national policy. i am not a lawyer, a judge or a national policy maker. John Stack, you think I am a phony tough guy? Interesting. You speak from a lofty height of genuine masculine pacifism? I suppose that you think that the war in Vietnam was illegal and orders to the war should have been refused?. pl

[Norbert M Salamon]

Sir, with respect, we had discocrse on Vietnam [in the past on these pages[, where I suggested that the anti-communism treat was the justification. I further stated that the false flag attack was unfortunate.

With respect to Syria your statement seemed categorical, as opposed to your above explanation - which isa restricted. The explanation is reflective of an honest patriot ex-Officer of the USA armed forces.

Sorry to have misunderstood you.

[FB Ali]

Libya could be "similar to Iraq" if its government does not turn out to be a friendly one and is under the influence of hostile elements.

[turcopolier]

NMS

Like TTG and many here i am not an "ex officer." i am a retired officer. pl

[Fred]

Thanks, I think I may have read more into your comment than was there.

[Babak Makkinejad]

I do not see that as having high probability due to Golan and to Jerusalem and the inability of US to deliver on either or both.

I just do not see a Peace Treaty with Israel without (East) Jerusalem reverting to Muslim Control. And without it there will be no peace with Syria.

Which means that the successor state to the Alawite rule (if any) will remain in state of war with Israel and thus in need of allies - which will not be forthcoming from the rank fo US associates such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Am I missing something here?

[William P. Fitzgerald III]

Pat Lang,

I didn't realize and havn't heard that bringing down the Syrian government was a goal of American foreign policy. But, if so, to what end? A weakened or balkanized Syria wouldn't seem to benefit the U.S. I can think of one nation that would benefit through the solidifying of its annexation of the Golan region and its ambitions in southern Lebanon.

WPFIII

[turcopolier]

WPFIII

it has been a consistent if not declared policy of the US to seek regime change in Syria. The "Syria Accountability Act" of 2004 was an unmistakable sign of that. The Ziocons who dominated Bush foreign policy resolutely refused to accept approaches from the early Bashar assad government to that end. by the time Obama took over attitudes on the Syrian side had hardened to the point that Bashar Assad was no longer capable of bringing a US/Israeli/Syrian to be. In the present context there is litle doubtthat the US seeks regime change in Damascus. A change of government in Syria will not necessarily lead to a "balkanized or weakened" Syria. In fact a non Baath, non Assad government might well be in a position to obtain the Israeli occupied Golan Heights. pl