Syria Disintegrating: Part 2

[Sheilbh]

That is hardly the worst case scenario, just one of many bad ones. Assad's regime was worse than Iran, the Taleban are worse, the Islamic State was worse etc.

Or just total collapse.

What's your view on the merits of the Nuremberg Trials then?

No issue with them - but I think it flows from only being willing to accept unconditional surrender. But unconditional surrender is the exception and we should recognise that reality.

Also haven't read it yet but Gary Bass' Judgement at Tokyo looks fascinating on the Japanese war crime trials. The only thing I know about that was that there were judges from many countries including India - and the Indian judge issued a dissent. Basically saying there's no doubt that the Japanese committed atrocities but there was basically no legal basis for the trial. It was victors' justice that invented a set of "war crimes" after the fact and explicitly excluded consideration of anyone but the Japanese - for example, not including the American atomic bombs, the Brits in India or the Dutch in Indonesia.

The judges panel in Nuremberg would reach that type of challenge - but I do think it has force and is, legally, probably right.

So I think Nuremberg probably was victors' justice and legally dubious (at best) - but also fully justified (not least by force and unconditional surrender) and right.

And you know, obviously, I do think whatever your view on the respective merits the rest of the world sees this as a huge hypocrisy when the West absolutely cares about war crimes in Ukraine, but will not abide by a decision by the same tribunal in respect of Gaza. As I say, no comment on the merits of those decision, but the hyprocrisy point is a fair criticism.

Edit: And I wonder if maybe the European equivalent of an Indian judge in Tokyo would be a Polish judge at Nuremberg - who I think  would have a different (and not wrong or untrue) view than the tribunal.

[Barrister]

Seems like false hopes regarding Assad plane going down.  That said, he appears to be as useful as Yanukovich, there just to give credibility to Russian exile insurance policy.  I don't see how he can ever be a player in any way going forward.

This is possibly my most heretical opinion - that actually it might be better to encourage dictators to flee to a villa in a friendly state where they can enjoy their wealth than try to insist on some form of justice. I could be wrong but I feel it just causes them to dig in and throw everything at surviving because there's often no way out - and it's actually kind of doing the world a service to give Assad a dacha.

What's your view on the merits of the Nuremberg Trials then?

Nuremberg trials after the complete collapse and conquest of Nazi Germany in 1945 was completely called for.

Would the world have been better off to allow Hitler and senior Nazis to go into exile in 1944 as part of Germany's surrender?  I think maybe it would have.

[Darth Wagtaros]

The Assads came to power in the first place because the anarchy and turmoil was more frightening than a tyranny.  Something similar may happen again.

[Barrister]

Worst case scenario would be an Iranian-style theocracy.

That is hardly the worst case scenario, just one of many bad ones. Assad's regime was worse than Iran, the Taleban are worse, the Islamic State was worse etc.

Was Assad's state worse than Iran?

Under Assad Syria exerted quite a lot of control over Lebannon - but didn't really show much other interest in foreign adventures.  Whereas Iran keeps picking fights throughout the middle-east.

Taliban and ISIS - ISIS sure (it showed no respect for borders, loved taking slaves) but Taliban?  At least in 2.0 they're terrible on women's rights, but again no interest in foreign adventures.

[crazy canuck]

I think you guys need to remember that there is zero history of democracy there. There will be a lot of forces, not least the myriad groups armed to the teeth, pushing things toward violence and extremism. Another strongman dictatorship forming eventually that will want to remain part of the international community is the reasonable best case scenario IMHO.

Depends on what you mean by democracy.  There is more than a zero history of the population trying to create their own form of civil government. Post WWI the problem has been the French using force to remove those efforts and maintain their own control.

This will be the first time the population Syria has a real chance for a redo.  They might blow it, and it is likely it does not work out. Particularly with Turkey getting involved. But it is not inevitable that they fail.   

[DGuller]

I think you guys need to remember that there is zero history of democracy there. There will be a lot of forces, not least the myriad groups armed to the teeth, pushing things toward violence and extremism. Another strongman dictatorship forming eventually that will want to remain part of the international community is the reasonable best case scenario IMHO.

While I share your expectation that they will not be able to establish a functioning democracy, I do not see a history of democracy as a prerequisite for establishing one.

Obviously history of democracy is too stringent of a requirement, since in that case democracy would never spread.  However, excluding cases where democracies were imposed by victors, it seems like you need a long period of tame and competent authoritarianism to create conditions where democracy can take root.  I don't think Syria under Assad scored high under either criteria.

[crazy canuck]

I think you guys need to remember that there is zero history of democracy there. There will be a lot of forces, not least the myriad groups armed to the teeth, pushing things toward violence and extremism. Another strongman dictatorship forming eventually that will want to remain part of the international community is the reasonable best case scenario IMHO.

While I share your expectation that they will not be able to establish a functioning democracy, I do not see a history of democracy as a prerequisite for establishing one.

Obviously history of democracy is too stringent of a requirement, since in that case democracy would never spread.  However, excluding cases where democracies were imposed by victors, it seems like you need a long period of tame and competent authoritarianism to create conditions where democracy can take root.  I don't think Syria under Assad scored high under either criteria.

Your theory of what is required for democracy to take root excludes all of the most successful democracies in the world.

[Zanza]

Was Assad's state worse than Iran?

Under Assad Syria exerted quite a lot of control over Lebannon - but didn't really show much other interest in foreign adventures.  Whereas Iran keeps picking fights throughout the middle-east.

Foreign adventures? I was more thinking of the respective domestic situation. Iran is a brutal, repressive dictatorship. But I feel that at least in the last thirteen years living in Iran was better than living in Assad's Syria. Half the population in Syria was displaced, hundreds of thousands killed...
Also you mentioned Iran being a theocracy. That also seems more relevant domestically than in foreign policy. Assad or Hamas for example were not a Shias, merely an ally of convenience.

Taliban and ISIS - ISIS sure (it showed no respect for borders, loved taking slaves) but Taliban?  At least in 2.0 they're terrible on women's rights, but again no interest in foreign adventures.

Ok, but we have zero indication that the current factions in Syria are interested in foreign adventures. Whether or not they will establish a democracy or a islamist caliphate or whatever seems to have mainly a domestic impact.

[Syt]

I work across the street from the Syrian embassy. Colleague who had to work over the weekend said there was party there, and looking out the window, it's dark, but I notice instead of the red-white-black flag they used to fly, there's now the green-white-black draped on the balcony.

Wonder how many extra flights to Moscow were leaving this weekend.

[Norgy]

I am very happy the rebels won Damascus, but this war is not over.

[Zanza]

'Beyond the buffer zone'
Nadav Shoshani, a spokesperson for the Israeli military, denied that forces were "advancing toward" Damascus, but acknowledged they were operating in Syria beyond the buffer zone. The Israeli military has insisted that it "is not interfering with the internal events in Syria."

Katz said in a statement on Monday that Israel was creating a "security zone free of heavy strategic weapons and terrorist infrastructures" in southern Syria, "beyond the buffer zone."

Voice of the Capital said on Tuesday that Israeli forces had advanced as far as Beqaasem, about 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) from the Syrian capital and several kilometers beyond the Syrian side of the buffer zone.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/10/middleeast/israel-syria-assad-strikes-intl/index.html

Another (at least for me unexpected) external participant in the quagmire. 

[garbon]

I recall yesterday them saying they wanted to make sure to destroy chemical weapons.

[Barrister]

What I had read is that Israel

A; seized Mount Hermon (mentioned briefly in the article) as it was providing a radar shadow for incoming drones / missiles, and

B: taking the opportunty to destroy any heavy Syrian military equipment like tanks, helicopters and anti-aircraft defences.

I'm not sure whether this is a good move or not on their part.

[Iormlund]

From that axis of advance one can bypass Hezbollah defenses and go straight into the Beqaa Valley.

[Habbaku]

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/syrias-new-rulers-back-shift-free-market-economy-business-leader-says-2024-12-10/

Moan.