Could CM:SF happen for real?

[Cpl Steiner]

Hi all,

Apologies if this has already been discussed - I haven't the time right now to do a search. I was just thinking, it is not at all implausible right now for NATO to be dragged into an invasion of Syria, for the reasons I shall outline below.

Firstly, the Syrian crackdown seems now to be completely out of control. Reports are coming out of Syrian soldiers being shot in the back of the head for refusing to fire on demonstrators. If the reports are true, even soldiers firing deliberately over the heads of demonstrators are being executed on the spot for disobeying orders.

Secondly, the Turkish president is apparently furious over the situation because he was given assurances in person by Syria that there would be no excessive use of force against unarmed opposition elements.

Thirdly, Turkey is now having to contend with thousands of Syrian refugees streaming over its borders.

Fourthly, Turkey is a NATO member.

Here's how I think it could go. Faced with a humanitarian crisis on its border, Turkey sends forces into the border area of Syria to establish a safe haven for Syrian refugees so they don't have to cross into Turkey. Syria responds by attacking those Turkish forces which have entered the country. Turkey invokes article 5 of the NATO treaty, which says that an attack on one member should be considered an attack on all, requiring other signatories of the NATO treaty to come to its aid. In response, NATO quickly organises an expeditionary force to help police the Syrian border area siezed by Turkey. End game: NATO forces build up in the border area and then drive on Damascus to depose the regime, which is now viewed as having no legitimacy and as posing a continuing threat to a NATO ally.

What do you think - could it happen?

[Magpie_Oz]

Sure that could happen, the key to deciding if it is likely or not is to look at what reaction would be engendered from the other Middle Easter States

[Sgt Joch]

Right now, the US/NATO Armed Forces are pretty much stretched out by their involvement in Afghanistan/Iraq/Lybia.

Second, there is less media coverage than was the case in Tunisia, Egypt and Lybia and little popular support/pressure in western countries for intervention, even though the Syrian demonstrations/uprising have now gone on for 3 months.

Third, there is also the unspoken fear both inside and outside Syria of who will take over if the Assad regime is overthrown.

So right now, the chances of western military intervention is slim to none.

However, if the internal crisis worsens or Civil War breaks out and nothing is resolved internally in the next 3-6 months, you may see an increased probability of western intervention.

ps - civil war may be a more likely scenario. There are conflicting reports that some military units may have mutinied in Jisr al-Shughour and that this is what prompted the violent Syrian reaction.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8571380/Syria-last-remnants-of-mutiny-in-Jisr-al-Shughour-crushed.html

[MikeyD]

One factor mitigating against CMSF going 'real world' is the current level of exhaustion of the primary players. I believe Iraq has been the second most $$$ expensive war (adjusted for inflation) since the civil war. Afghanistan is in the running to become the longest, depending on how you date the Vietnam 'police action'. There's some irony that the game's 'near future' spring/summer 2007 timeframe got the war in just before our economy collapsed. So it took place while we could still afford to do it.

[sawomi]

[...] Faced with a humanitarian crisis on its border, Turkey sends forces into the border area of Syria to establish a safe haven for Syrian refugees so they don't have to cross into Turkey. Syria responds by attacking those Turkish forces which have entered the country. Turkey invokes article 5 of the NATO treaty, which says that an attack on one member should be considered an attack on all, ... [...]

If Turkey enters Syria and get's 'attacked' there, it would have no legal reason to invoke article 5 NATO treaty...

[SKELLEN]

According to Sky News today and one Naval officer we can (the UK) barely afford the Libyan involvement and it could easily amount to a Billion pounds within the next few months. If a decision is ever made with regard to Syria and NATO, then of course let those countries who are part of NATO and not pulling there weight do there part for a change, the UK, US, France can not, and should not be required to do the work of other NATO members.

I also think the UK and US in particular have become a victim of our own success over the years and taken for granted by politicians and other NATO members, but that's another story.

[Sergei]

No, not really. The CMSF backdrop is more or less a setup for a "Iraq War 3 Minus Iraq" set in 2008; it's very unlikely that any NATO operations against Syria, were they to happen, would be of such a scale. More likely, assuming it did happen, it would be a matter of enforcing a NFZ and bombing army units attacking rebel cities, like in Libya.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I also think the UK and US in particular have become a victim of our own success over the years and taken for granted by politicians and other NATO members, but that's another story.

Ah, you are referring to the highly successful operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[SKELLEN]

Ah, you are referring to the highly successful operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The initial Iraq operation was a success but admittedly the powers that be never thought through the aftermath of the situation. Afghanistan is and always has been a difficult country for any nation that dared to invade, occupy, attack, etc, and yes once again mistakes have been made here, but also a lot of progress has been made in helping women getting the education they would otherwise be denied under the Taliban. Also more towns and villages are once again trading but this wasn't the case previously, so yes the British and Americans have made a difference.

Let's not forget that the soldiers on the ground do an amazing job with a huge amount of bravery thrown in, they might question what's right or wrong amongst themselves but they are highly trained and get on with the job at hand, and can be relied upon, unlike the politicians of the world.

As for the political situation, that's for the politicians to determine as I hate politics - period.

[MikeyD]

Let's not forget the game 'backstory'. Assad gets overthrown (I think), a considerably more radicalized government takes over and 'dirty bomb' nuclear devices explode in Europe. As outlandish as that scenario may be it admittedly would be enough for NATO to move against Syria, even today. The question is would anything short of nuclear radiation in downtown Berlin prompt a full-scale invasion. Note in 2011. Maybe following the 2012 presidential elections.

[SKELLEN]

The question is would anything short of nuclear radiation in downtown Berlin prompt a full-scale invasion. Note in 2011. Maybe following the 2012 presidential elections.

I don't know about any future scenario in Syria happening/not happening but I'm pretty sure any drop of nuclear radiation within Germany or the EU would most likely result in the west Nukeing Syria. Saddam Hussein refrained from using chemical weapons on the west during the invasion of Iraq due to this very reason, and who can blame him.

[Erik Springelkamp]

but also a lot of progress has been made in helping women getting the education they would otherwise be denied under the Taliban.

You do know that the best period for women in Afghanistan was under remote Soviet Rule, don't you (no I guess you don't)

so yes the British and Americans have made a difference.

Yes, to start with the fact that the Islamic revolution in Afghanistan was started by the CIA in the first place.

You bring the place down from one side, then you blow it up from the other side.

[SKELLEN]

You do know that the best period for women in Afghanistan was under remote Soviet Rule, don't you (no I guess you don't)

Yes, to start with the fact that the Islamic revolution in Afghanistan was started by the CIA in the first place.

You bring the place down from one side, then you blow it up from the other side.

Yes we all know what happened to the Soviets and there methods in Afghanistan, or perhaps you don't?

Yes the CIA supported the Muhajadeen during the 80's in the fight against communism and one Osama Bin Laden in the process, what goes around comes around. Now they are known as the Taliban and using weapons/tactics obtained and learned from us. What else is new? History repeats itself as far as Afghanistan is concerned and man never seems to learn from it, hence the wars in the world today.

Anyway this thread has gone off topic once again so please leave it there as I won't be saying any more.

[vincere]

Iran is pushing it's luck. No time soon; but some of its actions now may come back on it in the future.

Quite a high hazard strategy supporting major terror organisations.

[Alan8325]

Although the probability that NATO forces will become involved in Syria is low, there is a higher probability that civil war will break out with defecting military units making a stand with protesters against Assad forces. This type of scenario is still "CMSF realized" in a RED vs RED respect. I believe most of the assets that would be used by either side are in the game, including unconventional combatants that could represent armed protestors and non-uniformed military defectors.

Below are some comments from one of the latest articles, suggesting that there is even some armour vs armour fighting already:

Refugees arriving in Turkey said fighting had also broken out among Syrian troops on Sunday as soldiers bent on destroying the area were confronted by others trying to defend the townsfolk.

Elements from one tank division had even taken up positions by bridges leading into the town in a bid to defend it, they said.

"The troops are divided," said 35-year-old Abdullah, who fled Jisr al-Shughur on Sunday and sneaked over the border into Turkey to find food.

"Four tanks defected and they began to fire on one another," he added.

Ali, another Syrian refugee who made it to Turkey, told a similar story.

"There is now a split within the army and you have a group who are trying to protect the civilians," the 27-year-old told AFP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/wl_mideast_afp/syriapoliticsunrest_16

[vincere]

Red Vs Red higher probability.

The oppositions accusing Assad of using Iranians and Hezbollah against their civilians.

[MikeyD]

Assad and Iran were never a good fit. One's theocratic Shia while the other's not only staunchy secular but Baathist - Iran's old nemesis fom the Iran Iraq war. I imagine if Assad were to stoop to using radical theocratic elements to quell the current uprising these elements would get a big surprise when he surpresses them in turn. So we'd likely see a nasty armed conflict arise between erstwhile allies even bloodier than the original 'Arab Spring' supression.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Assad and Iran were never a good fit. One's theocratic Shia while the other's not only staunchy secular but Baathist - Iran's old nemesis fom the Iran Iraq war. I imagine if Assad were to stoop to using radical theocratic elements to quell the current uprising these elements would get a big surprise when he surpresses them in turn. So we'd likely see a nasty armed conflict arise between erstwhile allies even bloodier than the original 'Arab Spring' supression.

But Hezbollah is for both a power that works to their strategic advantage so they cooperate intensively on this front.

One doesn't need the same ideology to form an alliance.

But indeed, internally Islamistic forces are not tolerated in Syria.

[Sgt Joch]

You do know that the best period for women in Afghanistan was under remote Soviet Rule, don't you (no I guess you don't)

That is a stretch. Yes, the Soviet backed regime granted rights to women, but that was more theoretical than real.

Soviet citizens were also granted extensive rights by the Soviet Constituion. The tricky part was trying to exercise them...

[Sgt Joch]

But Hezbollah is for both a power that works to their strategic advantage so they cooperate intensively on this front.

One doesn't need the same ideology to form an alliance.

But indeed, internally Islamistic forces are not tolerated in Syria.

The Syria-Iran alliance is merely based on a mutuality of interest regarding Hezbollah. Syria and Iran have many diverging interests (even concerning the role of Hezbollah) and the alliance could splinter at any time.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101013_syria_hezbollah_iran_alliance_flux

[Erik Springelkamp]

That is a stretch. Yes, the Soviet backed regime granted rights to women, but that was more theoretical than real.

Not all families in Afghanistan were retarded.

Those that were not sent their daughters to good schools and even University during that era.

Soviet citizens were also granted extensive rights by the Soviet Constituion. The tricky part was trying to exercise them...

For at least 40% of Russians life was better under the Soviet era than today.

The Soviet Union in Afghanistan pre 1980 had nothing material to gain.

Their only interest was to prevent the area to come under Western rule.

It meant that Soviet administrators/advisors were on average of the idealistic kind and not of the greedy corrupt kind like in the rich republics and provinces.

They built and maintained the infrastructure of power plants, roads, schools and hospitals, as that was (and is) something beyond Afghan society itself.

In a way it was the Communist form of what Christian churches did for the West in 3rd world countries - probably with similar moral motives and similar moral errors.

Edit: Of course it became entirely different and very nasty after 1979.

[LJFHutch]

From my understanding American involvement against the USSR in Afghanistan certainly didn't help the situation - yeah you killed that rat, but you used a hand grenade and now all your windows and furniture are broken and every time you go to sit down somewhere you get splinters.

*

I agree with the greater likelihood of Red/Red combat though, short of something really serious NATO isn't going to get involved.

[Fat Dave]

Nice analogy

[MikeyD]

Here's a map of Syrian conflict areas pulled off today's BBC news. Its an odd feeling, we've spent years 'virtually' blowing up the place but instead of inuring us to the violence we've become more sympathetic. I feel like I'm more knowledgeable of the Syrian road network than my home state's! Can point out all the 'Bagdad Cafe' truck stops along route 3.

[vincere]

Here here, Mikey D.

I feel very empathetic for the Syrian people, and somewhat angry what they and Iran is getting away with.