The Bashar al-Assad Betting Game

I'm thinking there are four options here.

The Hussein - Assad retains control of his powerful military assets and crushes what appears to be a successful rebellion by an oppressed religious majority town by town, massacre by massacre, as they do not have the firepower, organization, and/or international support to fight back.

The Massoud - Assad and his loyalists retreat to a stronghold, while the rebels assume control of the rest of the country. Syria is essentially split into two nations as neither side is able to defeat the other.

The Mubarak - In an attempt to preserve their power and appease the mob, the military removes Assad from power - either arresting him or expelling him from the country.

The Gaddafi - No explanation needed.

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen - extra points for explaining your thought process.



My bet? The Hussein. The Syrian military is far more powerful than Gaddafi's was, and we saw how much NATO firepower it took to defeat. And despite the reports of defections, it has remained mostly loyal. Without international assistance, the rebels simply do not have the firepower to oust them. The only question in my mind is the level of secret international assistance, coming from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, specifically. If they are getting sufficient amounts of anti-air and anti-armor weaponry plus small arms and ammunition, that paradigm may not hold. Also critical will be the rebels ability to retreat, regroup, and plan operations from the safety of friendly nations, which appears to be the case.

That being said, I still think Assad will eventually reassert power over Syria. The fighting in Damascus almost seems like a trap.

Without odds I can't make a fully informed betting decision.

However, I say Hussein but with the caveat of lip service recessions due to a rather pokey RussiaChina at his back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Without odds I can't make a fully informed betting decision.

---

Well yeah, you don't really win anything either. It's really more of a guessing game. :shrug:

I don't think anyone would be surprised if we'd find out Saudi-Arabia (in particular) and possibly some other states would be supporting the rebels. Furthermore, I would be kind of careful in drawing comparisons with previous uprisings, particularly that of Saddam Hussein, but the problem lies more in the phrasing: the uprising against Assad is not a religious one.

As of writing this, I'm in Beirut, and we're being continually updated on the latest events in Syria. The current developments point towards a critical stage. The next events will probably be crucial in determining the conflict, but it's very hard to make a real educated guess right now.

please bring me women, a cedar tree, and shisha

God I suck at foreign affairs, but because no one else has said it, I will guess the Gaddafi. Only because I would like another crazy dictator that comedians can easily make fun of.

Whatever Russia wants

I was going to go with the Gadaffi.

Syria's armed forces are strong in terms of weaponry, but consripts are often more similar to the rebels than the officers - and some of the officers are defecting as well. This erosion of capability would be what mitigates the strength on paper, and I think will snowball. Losses also often strengthen the rebels.

The suicide bomber killing three at the head of the chain took a lot of experience out at a crucial time.

Saudi Arabia et al are giving and will probably continue to give weaponry and I imagine this will increase - hand portable are a threat to modern tanks, let alone the Armour Syria has. Syria has already refused to dig out rebels in cities as the army's morale is too low. At then end of the day, rebels can survive just holding the countryside but the supposed regime can't.

Russia wants to retain their geopolitical ally. But there will come a point where it is better to belatedly back the winner you don't want rather than the looser you do. China is probably against setting the precident of the UN sticking their nose into matters so is less likely to relent. They might end up abstaining in the vote.

If Assad were to turtle, I think the rebels would expend the resources to dig him out, lest he return. Also I imagine he and his enclave would rather flee for a life of riches in exile rather than a life of poverty and possible execution. The Alawyte locals might side with him, but by that point they'd more likely give him up lest the victorious rebels engage in some post-match religious cleansing.

The Armed Forces are Assad's creation and have little if any more cudos and I doubt the populace or rebels would view this as satisfactory. In Egypt the armed forces had a lot more respect and they have shown that once a power base gets power it is reluctant to give it up.

~:smoking:

The rebellion seems to be too entrenched for it to be possible for Assad to survive. One guess would be that the war ends with most of the senior military officials fleeing, leaving the army without a proper chain of command and so it collapses.

Mubarak seems to be a ship that has already sailed. The Massoud and Ghadaffi scenarios are possible if the rebels increase their momentum. The Massoud seems the less likely of the two because if the regime permanently loses, say, half of its territory it will be seen as having lost its legitimacy - I don't see Assad surviving long in that position, allthough it's possible that some military bloke will off him and take his place. Right now my gut says a Hussein scenario: by and large, Syria slowly comes back under Assad's control except for some minor enclaves that will defy his authority for many years, but which are no existential threat.

I'm off to divine the entrails of a goat, will get back to you after that.

The Gaddafi, Modified Version

I do not believe that Assad can defeat the rebels. He's fighting a guerrilla war in his own country and in heavily urbanized areas. Without the support of the local people in those areas, it's pretty much impossible to control them without overwhelming force. At the same time, he clearly does not have overwhelming force. Regardless of the size of the Syrian military, it is clearly insufficient to deal with the size of the rebellion. They seem to win whenever they concentrate forces on a certain area, but the rebels simply withdraw and go elsewhere. The rebels strike wherever the Syrian military is weak, and usually win there. The Syrian military is not large enough to be everywhere at once, and this is well demonstrated with the current situation in Damascus. They drew forces back to the capital to deal with the fighting there, and lost control of many border areas.

At the same time, Assad is getting weaker while the rebels are getting stronger. Funding and weapons to the rebels will continue to increase (from Western and other Middle Eastern nations), while Assad will not be getting resources from any more sources than he is currently (Iran, Hezbollah, Russia). If you look at the daily casualty figures, the Syrian military is also taking very high numbers of casualties. If you remove civilian casualties from the picture, Syrian military losses regularly exceed FSA losses every single day, and usually by a significant margin. Add in defections, which continue to occur and only go in one direction, and the Syrian military is bleeding out.

The reason I say it will be a 'Modified' version of the Gaddafi scenario is that it has the potential to be a lot bloodier after Assad finally falls. Libya still has some tribal conflict issues, but it has managed to avoid much bloodshed and appears to be coming together as a cohesive nation. Depending on how long the Syrian situation goes on, that might not occur there. It could turn into sectarian warfare, which would be very bloody and do extensive harm to the nation. The best comparison for that scenario would be, IMHO, the Lebanese Civil War.

Just a few days ago, I would've gone with either Gadaffi or Massoud.

After the high officials were murdered, however, I'm introducing a fifth option; the semi-Stalin.

It seems likely that such murders can only be carried out without the support of someone on the inside. Whether it's true or not is actually irrelevant, the important thing is the ammount of paranoia it generates. I believe we'll see a moscow trial show soon, with plenty of executions, defections and general mayhem. Stalin did this when there was no real threat to his position, unlike Assad, and so I expect this will lead to Assad's downfall.

As said before, the Mubarak is unlikely. There has been too much bloodshed for simply removing the president and blame him for everything. Too many soldiers and militiamen have been involved. I think we will see a continuing civil war in which the rebels get prolonged support with weapons, ammonition and training from outside. Eventually they will take over most of the country and kill or expell Assad, but this won't end the bloodshed as there still will be too many wishes for revenge. Fearing them, many members of the security forces will continue fighting, alongside the minorities.
So after all, my guess is the Gaddafi followed by an ongoing civil war.

I don't think the comparison with the Lebanese Civil War works, for two main reasons.

Firstly, the sectarian divide in Lebanon was emphasised by the political organisation of the country. Much of the policy-making was created by political bosses who often got their way through bribery, extortion or physical violence. The difference between (pseudo-)democratic elements present in Lebanon before the Civil War and the authoritarian situation in Syria since the coup d'êtat in 1970 by Hafez al-Assad is very important.

Secondly, in my opinion, Syrian politics are a lot less defined by sectarian discourse than in Lebanon. As was the case with Libya, the roots of the conflict are, as far as I'm aware, in essence not religious. This doesn't necessarily mean that religion has played no role in this conflict as we've seen numerous examples of Shi'ites being harassed, assaulted or killed. Be that as it may, I don't think sectarian divides define this uprising/civil war, and I don't expect a post-wartime reconstruction of the state to be characterised by religious or sectarian discourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I don't think sectarian divides define this uprising/civil war, and I don't expect a post-wartime reconstruction of the state to be characterised by religious or sectarian discourse.

---

I very much hope you are correct.

I believe it's gonna be Hussein. It seems like Assad hasn't really tried to fight - he seemed more content to just respond to threats rather than to seek rebels out actively.

As PJ said, he's got a rather powerful and loyal military at his back and it's not gonna be pretty when he unleashes it.

That scenario depends on Syrian Army units following their orders and attacking civilians. The 60,000 (according to Turkey) who've deserted rather than follow such orders makes that unlikely.

Quote:

---

I very much hope you are correct.

---

Me too. It could very well just be my hope speaking here, but I re-read the history of Hafiz al-Assad's rise to power and the uprising back in the 1980s, and it occured to me that it appeared to be much more defined along Islamic lines.

Modified Mubarak

Russia will convince him to step down; military takes control=>Assad "disappears" in resulting confusion=>hand-picked successor over-sees a "regime of reconciliation" which then rules indefinitely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm thinking there are four options here.

The Hussein - Assad retains control of his powerful military assets and crushes what appears to be a successful rebellion by an oppressed religious majority town by town, massacre by massacre, as they do not have the firepower, organization, and/or international support to fight back.

The Massoud - Assad and his loyalists retreat to a stronghold, while the rebels assume control of the rest of the country. Syria is essentially split into two nations as neither side is able to defeat the other.

The Mubarak - In an attempt to preserve their power and appease the mob, the military removes Assad from power - either arresting him or expelling him from the country.

The Gaddafi - No explanation needed.

---

Well, to be honest, the Gaddafi would actually be the Hussein. Before the NATO airstrikes, Gaddafi's army was calmly strolling towards Benghazi. Even Saif was saying "This will be over by tomorrow" Only once NATO started bombing the :daisy: out of every metal thing going East did things start to go sour for Gaddafi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Modified Mubarak

Russia will convince him to step down; military takes control=>Assad "disappears" in resulting confusion=>hand-picked successor over-sees a "regime of reconciliation" which then rules indefinitely.

---

I'm going to go along with this one.

I think there's enough international uproar that Assad will have to step down at some point, but it'll be just another face to front the same power base. Short of a major external military intervention I don't think there's going to be any real changes to the political situation. A bit more guesswork says that the regime is trying to use as "little" force as "necessary" to put things down, as they're hoping to avoid real, serious international intervention. If they do have to ratchet up the brutality a few or lot more notches, Assad will keep the reigns as long as they need to get things done and associate the blame with him, at which point he'll step down, or more likely aside.

The Hussein seems more likely at the moment, and in the grand scheme of things it's the best feasible solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm thinking there are four options here.

The Hussein - Assad retains control of his powerful military assets and crushes what appears to be a successful rebellion by an oppressed religious majority town by town, massacre by massacre, as they do not have the firepower, organization, and/or international support to fight back.

The Massoud - Assad and his loyalists retreat to a stronghold, while the rebels assume control of the rest of the country. Syria is essentially split into two nations as neither side is able to defeat the other.

The Mubarak - In an attempt to preserve their power and appease the mob, the military removes Assad from power - either arresting him or expelling him from the country.

The Gaddafi - No explanation needed.

---

OT: You almost listed the components of the American president's name: Mubarak Hussein Osama, oops I mean Barack Hussein Obama. Is it true that that is only a fake identity and his real name is Barry Satoro?

@Topic: I think Assad will try to win the information war and make people realize the rebels are false flag operations, so they will lose sympathy in the west and they will leave having lost both militarily and information-wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

OT: You almost listed the components of the American president's name: Mubarak Hussein Osama, oops I mean Barack Hussein Obama. Is it true that that is only a fake identity and his real name is Barry Satoro?

---

https://i.imgur.com/SNZcY.jpg

Was wondering when someone would catch that one.

Here is interesting report from inside Aleppo. Warning: brief clips of deceased Syrian soldiers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU4C...0&feature=plcp

I have been very interested in how the old Soviet AFVs have performed in Libya and now Syria. One would expect the Syrian ones to perform better due to better crew training and maintenance, but it seems that they, too, are being ordered/lured into cities and destroyed. Can any of you military guys identify what killed the T-72 shown in this clip? RPGs would be the most obvious guess, but they would have to be fairly well placed/lucky hits.

double post

It does seem a "classic" ploy: the rebels / freedom fighter / whatever wail they've no RPGs or anti-air. They hole up in a nice important city. They await the Army to come in with armour, confident they can root out the rebels who appear to have decided to commit suicide.

Lo and behold, they've got RPGs and IEDs they unsportingly didn't tell the Army about. Assad looses tanks which are going to be tough to replace in terrain that is ideal for light infantry with AT to kill them.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Can any of you military guys identify what killed the T-72 shown in this clip? RPGs would be the most obvious guess, but they would have to be fairly well placed/lucky hits.

---

Not military, but to me it looks like it's almost completely burned out. Could have been anything from powerful IEDs to RPGs to a bunch of molotov cocktails tossed into the right areas.

The Syrians may not be Aryan brothers, but they are Christian brothers. Same goes for Iran - they may not be our Christian brothers, but they are our Aryan brothers.

Who except anti-white Jewish neocons and anti-Christian communists would want to see a war between Christian brothers, or Aryan brothers?

The "rebels" in Syria are extremist muslims like in all the other countries that have experienced CIA and Mossad sponsored rebel groups taking over well-working regimes and turning them into extremist Islamist states. We don't need to see our Christian brothers in Syria get destroyed by an invasion orchestrated by Israel through AIPAC.

We all love strong views in the backroom, and I am no bleeding heart. But this is approaching White Supremacy rhetoric / just bonkers.

~:smoking: