Assad's inner circle trying to covertly defect to rebels

[zoobyshoe]

I thought this was a very interesting development in the Syrian situation:

The "British Daily Telegraph" reports that senior Syrian regime members making contacts with rebel forces, moving funds into foreign countries in wake of senior air force commander defection.

Members of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s inner circle are covertly planing to defect and join the opposition should the Syrian regime become critically threatened by the rebellion, according to unnamed US sources in a report by The Daily Telegraph on Friday. The report could not be verified.

According to the report, senior Syrian military commanders have outlined “exit strategies” and are making direct contact with rebel forces to ensure that they will be welcomed and not persecuted.

The report follows a key defection on Thursday of a Syrian air force colonel. The colonel was the first senior officer to defect using an aircraft, after abandoning a mission to attack the city of Dera’a and landing his MiG 21 fighter jet in Jordan.

The Daily Telegraph also claimed that three other MiG pilots on the mission also considered defecting, but worried about how they would be treated.

The Syrian president is under intense pressure as he has been unable to stomp out the 15-month uprising, and world leaders considering offering him immunity in exchange for stepping down...

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=274828

 

[Bobbywhy]

Here’s an article from Al Jazeera about more defections from the Syrian Military:

At least four army officers, including two brigadier generals and two colonels, defected to the oppostion on Thursday, the same day an air force pilot flew to Jordan and requested political asylum.
Abdal Fareed Zakaria, one of the defected colonels, told our network that many more government troops want to switch sides but would face horrifying consequences, including attacks on their family members.
He says the international community is not doing enough to support the Syrian uprising and calls for a buffer zone to help the Free Syrian Army, the armed opposition, fight against the military.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/20126235355979449.html

If there was a civil war here in our country would it be acceptable for the European Union or the United Nations to interfere and intervene? I don’t think so.

We can only sit here and hope the vicious Assad and his Alawite minority will be kicked out of power soon. Already too many innocent Syrian people have paid the ultimate price: death. Not to mention the tens of thousands injured and or driven from their peaceful lives into neighbouring Turkey to avoid the bloodshed. I can only hope the majority of the Syrian people, the “rebels”, will get support from their Sunni brothers.

 

[phinds]

If there was a civil war here in our country would it be acceptable for the European Union or the United Nations to interfere and intervene? I don’t think so.

Well, we DID have a rebellion here once, and the rebel side was quite grateful for help from the French.

 

[Dotini]

I do not understand why any member of Assad's inner circle would defect to the rebels. They would risk instant death. This is because Assad's inner circle is largely Alawite as I understand it, and the rebels are largely Sunni. Reportedly the defecting fighter jockey was a Sunni and not a member of Assad's inner circle. Reports indicate the rebels are highly disorganized, and prone to killing prisoners. The overall situation is tragic, and the air is filled with all sorts of propaganda and rumors. It is difficult to know exactly what or whom to trust.

When rebellion occurred in the US, or Britain, it was the job of the established government to stamp it out. Somehow it seems hypocritical for the US and others to foment and support rebellion in other nations, then piously complain when the established government attempts to stamp it out.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[lisab]

I do not understand why any member of Assad's inner circle would defect to the rebels. They would risk instant death. This is because Assad's inner circle is largely Alawite as I understand it, and the rebels are largely Sunni. Reportedly the defecting fighter jockey was a Sunni and not a member of Assad's inner circle. Reports indicate the rebels are highly disorganized, and prone to killing prisoners. The overall situation is tragic, and the air is filled with all sorts of propaganda and rumors. It is difficult to know exactly what or whom to trust.

When rebellion occurred in the US, or Britain, it was the job of the established government to stamp it out. Somehow it seems hypocritical for the US and others to foment and support rebellion in other nations, then piously complain when the established government attempts to stamp it out.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

There may be reports of disorganization among the rebels, but they're getting funding (and I assume advice) from the Saudis, so that may change quickly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/22/saudi-arabia-syria-rebel-army

And I disagree that defecting is "certain death". If they get an agreement from the rebels, as shaky as it is, that might look better than what will likely happen to them if (when?) Assad falls.

 

[russ_watters]

When rebellion occurred in the US, or Britain, it was the job of the established government to stamp it out. Somehow it seems hypocritical for the US and others to foment and support rebellion in other nations, then piously complain when the established government attempts to stamp it out.

There are now established international standards of morality and conduct that apply here (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Geneva Conventions), so it really can be judged, in that context, which side is right and which is wrong. We support the right side. Your comparison is not apples to apples.

 

[Dotini]

We support the right side.

We support the rebels? Aren't the rebels a motley mixture of Sunnis, Wahhabis and al Qaeda, those wonderful folks who brought us 9/11?

What about the other side, who are secularists, Shia, Druze, Kurds, Christians and other minorities, who have a (very) rough form of freedom for men who shave, women who use cosmetics and dress in Euro clothes, users of alcohol, and have some tolerance for mildly deviant behaviors? What do you think will happen when the fundamentalist majority gains control?

We have lived for 40 years with the Assads. In '91, Bush recruited Assad into the coalition against Iraq, and Damascus sent 4,000 troops. In gratitude, we hosted a Madrid conference to advance a land for peace deal between Assad and Israel. It could have meant a return of the Golan Heights to Syria. It may be that Israel will be more content with Assad than whatever civil/regional war may bring.

The massacres are indeed appalling. Some are probably the work of rogue militia aligned with the regime. In '82 Assad killed 20,000 in an insurrection by the Muslim Brotherhood. In the Lebanon civil war, over 100,000 died. In the Iraq/Iran war, over a million were killed. Our role was to observe, satisfied that our enemies were killing one another. In '92, Algeria was on the brink of democracy, but the US gave the okay for France to prevent an Islamist takeover.

Before we go to war, or set up "safe" zones in Syria, which is an act of war, we should consult our strategic interests. What if Syria bombs the safe zones and shoots down American planes? After Reagan sent in the Marines in '83, we lost 241 of them plus the embassy. Reagan acknowledged it was the worst mistake of his presidency.

So Bashar is failing to live up to our expectations. Is it worth our blood and treasure to start a civil war, escalating to a regional war, just to depose Assad and install another Islamist state? "Tell me how this thing ends", as Petraeus said of the Iraq war. Do we want to be morally responsible for yet another bloody debacle?

I respectfully suggest we stay out of other people's business, and not charge in and blindly support what you seem to be sure is the "right side".

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Edit: Obama is getting pushback from the CIA on Syria. A National Intelligence Estimate reveals the Free Syria Army is much smaller than it claims to be, and has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and that many rebels have demonstrated a radical agenda. The report cites technical intelligence that many massacres can be attributed to militants rather than the Assad government. It seems the rebels have not been too careful when speaking over cell phones about what they're up to.

 

[ThinkToday]

US official: Russia sends troops to Syria as peace hopes fade

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12238938-us-official-russia-sends-troops-to-syria-as-peace-hopes-fade?lite

Will the Russian government allow Assad to fail, without having a say? Yea, the ship is on fire, but there are sharks in the water... jump ship now (defect) or not? Will the Russian life boat for Assad make his position secure?

 

[Bobbywhy]

There are now established international standards of morality and conduct that apply here (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Geneva Conventions), so it really can be judged, in that context, which side is right and which is wrong. We support the right side. Your comparison is not apples to apples.

Apples to Apples? Support the right side? Which side is right and which is wrong? These questions seem to emanate from a vacuum. Is your scope so limited that you ignore what our own nation does?

The invocation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the claim they apply to the case of Syria seems convenient. However, a reexamination of that claim in the light of evidence of the behavior of our own government seems warranted. Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, the founder of the Carter Center, and the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, wrote in yesterday’s New York Times:

“The declaration has been invoked by human rights activists and the international community to replace most of the world’s dictatorships with democracies and to promote the rule of law in domestic and global affairs. It is disturbing that, instead of strengthening these principles, our government’s counterterrorism policies are now clearly violating at least 10 of the declaration’s 30 articles, including the prohibition against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
“But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=2

It’s no wonder “enemies” criticize the US for professing to follow international standards of morality and conduct while not doing so itself. Righteousness claims from offenders is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

 

[russ_watters]

Dotoni, Bobbywhy, tossing out random wrongs from the US's past is just cheap, irrelevant distraction from the reality of what is going on in Syria: No one has claimed the US to be perfect and the US's imperfections do not change the fact that Assad's regime and its supporters are currently killing civilians en masse.

Also, only the two of you have brought up the possibility of American/western intervention or what it might look like. A step beyond a strawman, you're arguing against nothing, again as an irrelevant distraction: Regardless of if or how the west intervenes, the current moral situation is still clear.

Russ Watters
Founder, Watters Institute

 

[rootX]

What is good to be on the right side given somehow you can see the universal right side?

US should do what's in the best interest of itself not what external parties want it to do. I feel best is to stay low and outside of Syria internal issues. I recall reading democratized post-Assad Syria is what will be good for the US ally in the region, Israel.

Other ally, Turkey seems to be favoring rebels.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It’s no wonder “enemies” criticize the US for professing to follow international standards of morality and conduct while not doing so itself. Righteousness claims from offenders is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

This is the "Tu Quoque" variation of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy, BobbyWhy.

Tu quoque

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.

For example, a father may tell his son not to start smoking as he will regret it when he is older, and the son may point out that his father is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may regret smoking when he is older.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[rootX]

Also, only the two of you have brought up the possibility of American/western intervention or what it might look like.

Rereading all the thread, here's from where the American intervention discussion started:

If there was a civil war here in our country would it be acceptable for the European Union or the United Nations to interfere and intervene? I don’t think so.

It's best to stick to the original thread topic which is neither foreign intervention nor morality of the existing situation.

Going back to the original topic: defection of Assad's inner circle, I don't know how good this will work out as already pointed earlier by Dotni. The rebels are largely unorganized/untrained people who don't seem to be going good with the minorities. Further the OP's original source is a senior US official:

However, a senior US official in Washington told the Telegraph that, “We are seeing members of Bashar Assad’s inner circle make plans to leave."

It seems more like a propaganda. I don't feel the sources are credible enough.

 

[dijkarte]

I wonder why many siding with Islamist/extremists AKA "rebels" in the media? Do you even have a clue who they are?

 

[russ_watters]

It isn't difficult to understand: we don't like it when people slaughter lots of innocent civilians.

 

[PNGeng]

"The Free Syrian Army ruined our lives,"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18930876

An article for those who are under the illusion that they're well informed about the Syrian opposition.

 

[russ_watters]

I seriously doubt anyone here is under such an illusion.

 

[phinds]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18930876

An article for those who are under the illusion that they're well informed about the Syrian opposition.

Since this sort of thing has been widely reported in the US media, I don't see why you would think that folks here in the US think that the opposition forces in Syria are a bunch of nice fellows who will get along well once Assad has been hung by his heels.

 

[ThinkToday]

Since this sort of thing has been widely reported in the US media, I don't see why you would think that folks here in the US think that the opposition forces in Syria are a bunch of nice fellows who will get along well once Assad has been hung by his heels.

I agree, but there has been the discussion about whether to arm the rebels or not. IMO, this has the potential to be another Afghanistan in the sense of us arming and training people we would eventually battle. We armed and trained the Afghans to fight the Russians and look at the past 10 plus years of “thanks”. It wouldn't be the first time we helped a country we would end up in a war with. e.g. Iraq, Iran

 

[phinds]

I agree, but there has been the discussion about whether to arm the rebels or not. IMO, this has the potential to be another Afghanistan in the sense of us arming and training people we would eventually battle. We armed and trained the Afghans to fight the Russians and look at the past 10 plus years of “thanks”. It wouldn't be the first time we helped a country we would end up in a war with. e.g. Iraq, Iran

Well, on the one hand, I think it is a clear that arming the opposition in this case will end up even WORSE than did Afghanistan, BUT ... Assad DOES need to be hung by his heels, so it's a dilemma.

 

[dijkarte]

Well, we DID have a rebellion here once, and the rebel side was quite grateful for help from the French.

But your rebel side was not a bunch of Muslim "Sunni" extremists who are trying desperately to destroy a stable and a peaceful country. Have not you learned from Libya? This is even worse, and could be a dangerous threat to the holly land of Israel.
In short, when there's a functioning state/gov regardless of whatever others think of it, they can have one and only one option to change, through peaceful constitutional means. The term "democracy" is an imported term that has no meaning in the context of desert people. When they say we want democracy, they actually mean we want our religious sect to govern.

 

[phinds]

But your rebel side was not a bunch of Muslim "Sunni" extremists who are trying desperately to destroy a stable and a peaceful country. Have not you learned from Libya? This is even worse, and could be a dangerous threat to the holly land of Israel.
In short, when there's a functioning state/gov regardless of whatever others think of it, they can have one and only one option to change, through peaceful constitutional means. The term "democracy" is an imported term that has no meaning in the context of desert people. When they say we want democracy, they actually mean we want our religious sect to govern.

So I assume you think it would be best to just leave Assad alone and let him go on murdering his own people.

 

[dijkarte]

So I assume you think it would be best to just leave Assad alone and let him go on murdering his own people.

Victims are inevitable when terrorists hide in populated areas and use civilians as shields. Same was with Israel-Lebanon wars, and not to forget about Iraqis how many dead as innocent victims of deadly attacks against "terror?" So double standard does not fit in my logic. Who started the war? Syria is one of the most stable countries, used to be, and don't tell me about democracy and freedom in the middle-east, this word is non existence.
A question for you, would you support rebels against some rich Arab countries in the name of democracy? At least Syria does no behead women for witchcraft, at least for now...
To stop this bloodshed, there's one fair solution, stop arming the anti-state freaks.

 

[phinds]

Victims are inevitable when terrorists hide in populated areas and use civilians as shields. Same was with Israel-Lebanon wars, and not to forget about Iraqis how many dead as innocent victims of deadly attacks against "terror?" So double standard does not fit in my logic. Who started the war? Syria is one of the most stable countries, used to be, and don't tell me about democracy and freedom in the middle-east, this word is non existence.
A question for you, would you support rebels against some rich Arab countries in the name of democracy? At least Syria does no behead women for witchcraft, at least for now...
To stop this bloodshed, there's one fair solution, stop arming the anti-state freaks.

I doubt you'll find much sympathy for that point of view in the civilized world, almost all of which views Assad as a brutal murderer who has to go. And this whole thing about the opposition being terrorists is just a bad joke by a madman and his cronies who know that if Assad goes, so do they.

 

[dijkarte]

I doubt you'll find much sympathy for that point of view in the civilized world, almost all of which views Assad as a brutal murderer who has to go.

Yes this is the corrupt media, the murderers of truth, that feed all this garbage inside entry-level thinking people.

And this whole thing about the opposition being terrorists is just a bad joke by a madman and his cronies who know that if Assad goes, so do they.

Ok they are not terrorists, they are Jihadists, sounds better? Regardless of who they are it's wrong to fight a functioning state by arms destabilizing the whole region.

Believe me I'm from that region and know what's going on there. I'm not sure if you're aware of the Israeli wars against Lebanon, there were many civilians killed, but all was justified. I could agree with you if there was no double-standards. And again I want to see this happening in some friend oil countries :) what's the international community reaction?

 

[phinds]

Clearly you and I have nothing further to discuss.

 

[dijkarte]

Clearly you and I have nothing further to discuss.

Clearly! Anyway I was not discussing this with you individually. :)

 

[russ_watters]

...a stable and a peaceful country.

Many would disagree with that assessment.

Have not you learned from Libya?

Yes, Libya went much better than I expected.

Syria is one of the most stable countries, used to be...

Dictatorships do tend to be stable, yes. That's not in and of itself a positive thing.

Yes this is the corrupt media, the murderers of truth, that feed all this garbage inside entry-level thinking people.

The western media certainly isn't perfect, but given a choice, I'd choose to believe a free media rather than a state-run propaganda machine.

 

[dijkarte]

As I mentioned I live in that region, Israel, but I could be wrong...so please feel free to enlighten me

Many would disagree with that assessment.

Yes, the opposition and warmongers.

Yes, Libya went much better than I expected.

You call self-governed tribes, outlaw gangs and militia...went better? than what...?

Dictatorships do tend to be stable, yes.

Define dictatorship? I would rather have a dictatorship that gives people some personal freedom and life without imposing strict religion, than having religious bigots who want to make a mosque-based state under the name of democracy.

The western media certainly isn't perfect, but given a choice, I'd choose to believe a free media rather than a state-run propaganda machine.

But there's one better alternative, living the situation with a sense of logic and history.

Now my questions have not been answered yet, about the double standards where democracy really sucks under the oil-freak dictators.

 

[privyet]

This topic is definitely not as simple as good rebels vs bad Assad. Here's an article that suggests that the rebels were behind the massacre in Houla: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NG24Ak02.html

 

[Skrew]

I will support a dictatorship who acts in my interests over a democracy which degenerates into a muslim theocracy.

 

[chiro]

It isn't difficult to understand: we don't like it when people slaughter lots of innocent civilians.

So what if you your government does it? Or any government with any affiliation to yours in any capacity? Is it OK then?

 

[russ_watters]

So what if you your government does it? Or any government with any affiliation to yours in any capacity? Is it OK then?

No, and people have already tried this logical fallacy distraction. Please read Zooby's post #12 and stay on topic.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, the opposition and warmongers.

Warmongers? People are already dying, are they not? What you really are missing is that what we really want is an end to the bloodshed. Removal of Assad's regime and change to democracy is a secondary consideration that wouldn't even exist if the country weren't already seeing this bloodshed. And if Assad's regime and his followers weren't the main culprit -- if we saw evidence that it was following the rules of war and it was the other side doing most of the killing of civilians -- we'd support his side. It is telling that not even the African Union supports him. About the only countries that do are rogue dictatorships like his and countries that sell him weapons. The defections from his regime (the subject of the thread) are also telling.

You call self-governed tribes, outlaw gangs and militia...went better? than what...?

There are no guarantees about what comes after a revolution. What went better than I expected is that we were able to help end the revolution with airborne protection only.

Define dictatorship? I would rather have a dictatorship that gives people some personal freedom and life without imposing strict religion, than having religious bigots who want to make a mosque-based state under the name of democracy.

Westerners never prefer dictatorship, even if it was a benevolent one as you suggest -- which we don't agree it is.

But there's one better alternative, living the situation with a sense of logic and history.

No, that certainly is not better. A person's personal experiences are highly limited and biased. Getting a full picture of what is going on requires quality media coverage. Consider 9/11: I wasn't in New York when it happened, I saw it on TV.

Now my questions have not been answered yet, about the double standards where democracy really sucks under the oil-freak dictators.

What double standards? We don't like the government of countries such as Saudia Arabia, but they're not currently killing a bunch of civilians, are they?

Lets take a quick step back: Reports we in the West get indicate something like 15,000 people have died, mostly civilians, in the past 15 months or so. That's a situation we don't like. Is that claim of fact anywhere close to accurate in your opinion? Do you like it? Do you think we should ignore the deaths of so many people?

 

[chiro]

This is the "Tu Quoque" variation of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy, BobbyWhy.

Since when is the truth anything but?

By peoples deeds shall you know them: there is no logical fallacy to the actions especially those that have been documented on a medium like video of any individual or group. Call a spade a spade, your government along with many others committed atrocities and attempt to convey the message that 'war is peace'.

Aside from the topic of the thread concerning Syria, this is a point of concern and is highly relevant when it comes to the discussion of force especially in the context of one at the level of a nation state.

There is no logical fallacy to truth, and the facts are that nation states commit atrocities often in the guise of 'peace' to stop 'blood-shed' and 'war'. There is no logical fallacy to what has and is happening right now.

Its disgusting how the language has been so perverted to be completely devoid of meaning and how things are defined the way people want them to be rather than what they really are.