David Blair writes that: “Assad has effectively become the embattled mayor of Damascus and Aleppo, plus the policeman of the road that joins them. As the war has escalated, so his realistic objectives have been downgraded.”
Syria’s armed forces have clearly been stretched to breaking point by this crisis. On paper, the army has 220,000 soldiers, but most of the rank-and-file are Sunnis – and their loyalty to Mr Assad, whose regime is dominated by the minority Alawite sect, is not always guaranteed. Consequently, the burden of the fighting has fallen on two dependable units: the 4th division, under the de facto command of his brother, Maher, and the Republican Guard.
Together, these formations have no more than 30,000 men – less than 14 per cent of the army’s total strength – and they have borne the lion’s share of the task of combating a national insurrection. Their soldiers have fought from Deraa in the south to Idlib in the north, and they have paid a grievous price: at least 5,000 Syrian troops are believed to have been killed by the rebels in the past 16 months. By way of comparison, America has lost 1,939 men in Afghanistan during almost 11 years of war.
Mr Assad’s foes, notably Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have directly armed those responsible for this bloodshed, while America and Britain have provided non-lethal help. In the process, the rebels have clearly become far more capable, particularly in the past few months. Western and Arab opponents of the regime will argue that they are saving lives by hastening Mr Assad’s downfall – and they could be right. But no one should be under any illusions about the suffering inflicted by this course.
Reduced to defending a handful of cities, and confident of the loyalty of only a fraction of his army, Mr Assad is no longer bidding for outright victory. A core of his security forces can still be counted on to obey orders and defeat the rebels in pitched battles, but the clock is clearly ticking. He can still buy time – perhaps measured in months – but he cannot win.
“Together, these formations have no more than 30,000 men – less than 14 per cent of the army’s total strength – and they have borne the lion’s share of the task of combating a national insurrection. Their soldiers have fought from Deraa in the south to Idlib in the north, and they have paid a grievous price: at least 5,000 Syrian troops are believed to have been killed by the rebels in the past 16 months.”
Nonsense. 5000 dead and presumably double that wounded, means half of those 30,000 loyal troops are casualties. No force could tolerate even half those casualties and remain cohesive. The conclusion I draw is that the Army has a lot more than 30,000 loyal troops and that many of those Sunni soldiers are prepared to fight for the government-and country- against what seems to be the unlimited numbers of Jihadis the Gulf states can provide.
Recall that over a year ago, government claims that they were fighting foreign sponsored Islamist rebels was laughed at. Now it seems they were right all along.
Recall in Libya the claims of rape, “African mercenaries,” aerial bombardment of peaceful demonstrators, etc, all turned out to be pure horseshit.
Note, the writer said these 30,000 troops “have borne the lion’s share of the task of combating” the rebels. He didn’t say these were the sole forces being deployed.
Lysander, as you make clear in this comment (and previous comments), you have a set of preconceptions about what is happening in Syria and pay selective attention to the news that fits your views and ignore the rest. The idea that the Syrian army is up against an “unlimited number of Jihadis” coming from Gulf states is not only something you cannot substantiate; it reveals a rather transparent contempt for the hapless Syrians who supposedly find themselves caught in the crossfire between an army and hordes of foreign imposters.
At Moon of Alabama, a site where I know you find like-minded commenters, a couple of days ago the site operator, Bernhard wrote: “Here in Germany the press has now more reports showing the ‘rebels’ as what they really are: traveling jihadists and foreign paid rabble.” And now today he says: “The Syrian insurgency consist of unemployed youth, some army defectors and bandits and criminal gangs.”
The phrase that seems to capture both of these characterizations of those participating in this armed uprising is “rabble.” It is a contemptuous dismissal of men whose political aspirations are viewed as non-existent. For some observers this contempt is rooted in Islamophobia and for others, I suspect, it is a broader expression of contempt for the lower classes.
I often wonder whether among those who now willingly use the flimsiest evidence to deny that the desire for political freedom is the driving force behind the Syrian uprising, were as quick to dismiss the insurgency in Iraq? That’s a rhetorical question because we all know full well that it was the illegitimacy of the American occupation that legitimized the insurgency, even though the motives of individual insurgents ran the gamut from nationalist to Islamist.
Fortunately for the people in Syria they have no reason to give a damn about the idle muttering of a few bloggers or their commenters. Is anyone in Aleppo paying attention to what appears on this site or Moon of Alabama? I doubt it.