Syrian Rebels Land Deadly Blow to Assad’s Inner Circle

[frigidmagi]

NYTimes

The killing on Wednesday of President Bashar al-Assad’s key security aides in a brazen bombing attack, close to Mr. Assad’s own residence, called into question the ability of a government that depends on an insular group of loyalists to function effectively as it battles a strengthening opposition.

The strike dealt a potent blow to the government, as much for where it took place as for the individuals who were targeted: the very cabinet ministers and intelligence chiefs who have coordinated the government’s iron-fisted approach to the uprising. The defense minister and the president’s brother-in-law were both killed, and others were seriously wounded.

The attack on the leadership’s inner sanctum as fighting raged in sections of the city for the fourth day suggested that the uprising had reached a decisive moment in the overall struggle for Syria. The battle for the capital, the center of Assad family power, appears to have begun. Though there was no indication he was wounded, Mr. Assad stayed out of public view — unusual but not unprecedented in a secretive country where the government has long tried to present an image of quiet control.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said that Syria “is rapidly spinning out of control,” and warned Mr. Assad’s government to safeguard its large stockpile of chemical weapons. “It’s obvious what is happening in Syria is a real escalation,” he said at a joint news conference with the British defense minister, Philip Hammond.

The impact of the day’s events reverberated on multiple levels, piercing the psychological advantage that Mr. Assad’s superior military strength has provided in preserving the loyalty of his forces and frightening much of the public into staying home. With the opposition energized and the government demoralized, analysts wondered if other military units and trusted lieutenants would be more inclined to switch sides — and if the government would retaliate with an escalation of violence.

The idea that a poorly organized, lightly armed opposition force could somehow get so close to the seat of power raised questions about the viability of a once unassailable police state. The Assad family has for decades relied on overlapping security forces and secret police to preserve its lock on power. At best, for Mr. Assad, the system failed. At worst, for Mr. Assad, defectors or turncoats helped carry out an inside operation.

The government said that the attack was the work of a suicide bomber, while an officer with the Free Syrian Army said it was a remotely detonated explosive.

The most significant victim was Asef Shawkat — the husband of the president’s older sister, Bushra — who was the deputy chief of staff of the military after years as a top intelligence official. The others killed were Gen. Dawoud A. Rajha, the defense minister and the most prominent Christian in the government; and Maj. Gen. Hassan Turkmani, a previous defense minister serving as the top military aide to Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa.

“Who will replace these people?” asked Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese military officer and a military analyst knowledgeable about Syria. “They are irreplaceable at this stage; it’s hard to find loyal people now that doubt is sown everywhere. Whoever can get to Asef Shawkat can get to Assad.”

“Everyone, even those close to the inner circle, will now be under suspicion,” he said.

State television also said the minister of the interior, Lt. Gen. Mohamed al-Sha’ar, had been gravely wounded but was in stable condition. Hisham Ikhtiar, the head of general security, was reported by some activist organizations among those in critical condition, along with some junior officers, but the official news media did not confirm that.

The bombing took place in a small, nondescript building in a neighborhood that is home to the country’s elite. The building housed a research center run by the national security agency, one of many overlapping intelligence agencies.

“It was at the heart of the government’s nexus of control,” said an analyst with long experience in Damascus, speaking anonymously because he still travels there often. “If the regime had a center, that was it.”

But the government mounted a show of normality. It quickly appointed a new defense minister, Gen. Fahd Jassem al-Freij, the military chief of staff who had previously been responsible for trying to squash the uprising in northern Idlib Province. He appeared briefly on television, vowing that the military would not be deterred by the attack from “cutting off every hand that harms the security of the homeland and citizens.”

The military also issued a statement saying in part, “This terrorist act will only increase our insistence to purge this country from the criminal terrorist thugs and to protect the dignity of Syria and its sovereignty.”

Activists reported an even harsher crackdown, with government soldiers firing indiscriminately in several embattled neighborhoods or from helicopters, especially on the southern part of Damascus where fighting first erupted Sunday. Dozens of people were killed, and defections soared, activists said.

“The regime reacted hysterically to the attack,” said Rami al-Sayyed, an activist in Damascus. “The security forces and thugs infiltrated various neighborhoods, committing all kinds of crimes. Today we cut the head of the snake, but we still have the tail.”

Like any event in Damascus, details surrounding the attack were murky. There were competing accounts of how the attack occurred and competing claims of responsibility. The Free Syrian Army based in Turkey said it had helped carry out the attack. Also, a brigade from a group with a seemingly religious bent called the Islamic Battalions said it was responsible.

Lt. Malik al-Kurdi, the second in command of the Free Syrian Army troops in Turkey, said it was not a suicide bombing but “bombs planted around the national security building” that were set off by remote control.

Since the uprising began in March 2011, claiming an estimated 17,000 victims, Syria has been run by an ever tighter circle of army and security officials close to the president. General Rajha was one of the prominent minority figures used by the Assad government to put a face of pluralism on the military and security services dominated by the president’s Alawite sect.

“The Syrian regime has started to collapse,” said the activist who leads the Syrian Observatory, who goes by the pseudonym Rami Abdul-Rahman for reasons of personal safety. The attack heightened the perception globally that after months of clashes, Syria was embroiled in a civil war.

On the other end of the scale, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, delivered an emotional speech live on television, saying that the Syria of Mr. Assad and Mr. Shawkat was the backbone of the Arab confrontation with Israel.

The attack came as diplomatic maneuvers to seek a cease-fire remained deadlocked by differences between Syria’s international adversaries and sponsors, principally Russia. The United Nations Security Council is scheduled to vote on a Western-sponsored resolution that would threaten Mr. Assad’s government with economic sanctions if it does not implement a peace plan negotiated by the special envoy Kofi Annan more than three months ago.

The resolution, which Russia has threatened to veto, would extend the mission of 300 unarmed United Nations monitors, whose work has been suspended because of the violence.

Security Council members agreed to delay the vote, originally scheduled for Wednesday, until Thursday at Mr. Annan’s request, to allow more time for diplomats to resolve their differences over the resolution’s wording.

But in Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov, offering Russia’s first official commentary on the Damascus bombing, said via his Twitter account that the attack had put consensus between members of the Security Council even further out of reach.

“A dangerous logic: While discussions on settling the Syrian crisis are being held in the U.N. Security Council, militants intensify terrorist attacks, frustrating all attempts,” he wrote.

In Syria, the information minister, Omran al-Zoubi, appeared on a talk show to reject claims by those calling it the beginning of the end.

“The morale of our people is very high and our armed forces are at their highest level,” he said.

But residents of Damascus had been shaken as never before. Residents reached by telephone said that after the news broke around noon, people rushed out to buy food and then rushed back home again. City streets appeared deserted, with not even taxis circulating after dark.

“All the stores and shops are closed,” said an activist in Damascus reached via Skype. “Some people are scared and some are happy; you can hear people firing off gunshots in many places.” A video from Hama showed opposition members distributing candy to celebrate Mr. Shawkat’s death.

Like many dictatorships Syria is something of a family affair, with Assad's sisters and brothers in laws carrying on major parts of the work. While this is nothing close to a knockout blow (that would involve killing Assad or somehow destroying his military force) this does fucking sting and is a very vivid show that the rebels aren't out of the game yet.

[Josh]

Yeah, saying that Assad is 'on the way out' the way some sources are doing is premature. Other regimes have survived nasty shocks like this and still come back.

That said, the revolutionaries have come a hell of a long way and a lot further than a lot of sources were initially thinking they'd be able to go.

[General Havoc]

Yeah, saying that Assad is 'on the way out' the way some sources are doing is premature. Other regimes have survived nasty shocks like this and still come back.

That said, the revolutionaries have come a hell of a long way and a lot further than a lot of sources were initially thinking they'd be able to go.

I'm beginning to wonder about that. The sources in question are too many, too varied, and too generally on-point that I'm beginning to imagine they might know more than we do.

Reports from the BBC today are that Syrian rebels seized all the border crossings between Syria and Iraq and several of the ones between Syria and Turkey today.

[Josh]

I'm beginning to wonder about that. The sources in question are too many, too varied, and too generally on-point that I'm beginning to imagine they might know more than we do.

Wondering about what exactly?

I haven't been following this super-close, mind. But I do recall that after Gaddafi was killed a bunch of folks affiliated with the various Libyan militias were heading to Syria to help out. That would explain how they got their shit together so much faster than the Libyans did and with so little overt outside support.

[Charon]

It's not a knock-out blow, but it certainly looks a hell of a lot more likely that the Assad regime will be leaving than it did a week ago. But I'm still not gonna call this over one way or another, there is still WAY too much that we don't know about what the hell is going on over there.

I suspect that the Syrian rebels are getting a lot of military assistance from Libya and Turkey, though the increasing number of military defections is likely helping them organize as well.

[General Havoc]

Wondering about what exactly?

I haven't been following this super-close, mind. But I do recall that after Gaddafi was killed a bunch of folks affiliated with the various Libyan militias were heading to Syria to help out. That would explain how they got their shit together so much faster than the Libyans did and with so little overt outside support.

Wondering about how premature it is to be speaking of Assad's regime starting to come apart at the seams. I mean I don't expect him to vanish tomorrow or anything, but the actions of the last few days have not been those of a handful of unarmed, helpless civilians cowering before the might of their dictatorial ruler. Large sections of the country have fallen under the control of the Syrian rebels, who appear able to strike at the regime in the heart of Damascus at will.

I mean, we'll see of course. But the way these sorts of revolutions tend to go is that the media speculates on how long it will take before the rebels are annihilated to a man, right up until the day when they win.

[Josh]

I mean, we'll see of course. But the way these sorts of revolutions tend to go is that the media speculates on how long it will take before the rebels are annihilated to a man, right up until the day when they win.

And that could be the case here, but when you get an operation that was as media-friendly as the NTC you see them go the other way. Every time the Libyan rebels made a move it was 'Gaddafi's forces are collapsing, NTC forces on the march!' until they'd hit a reverse and go zipping the other way. That led to some people pondering a long-term stalemate or even a partitioned state until the collapse of Tripoli just shocked everyone.

One of the problems is that we're getting report-by-Twitter, and we saw just how loopy that could get in Libya. I was hanging around a place that was breathlessly and credulously reposting every pro-NTC twitter they came across. The NTC did win eventually but going by the Twitters they killed everybody in Gaddafi's army like three times, at least.

What gets me (and I'm not saying anybody here does this) is the way that people will root for this shit like it's a football game, and that's where I see a lot of people who are all on about 'Assad's about to fall!' coming from. To me, the spectactor-sport nature that's settled on these particular revolts is demeaning.

[General Havoc]

I'm sorry Josh, but you and I simply do not exist in the same media universes if that's what you experienced with the Libyan war. My experience was the media speculating about how long it would take Gaddafi to crush the NTC and how an organization like it was entirely untenable, practically up until the day that Tripoli collapsed. And my sense is that the collapse of Tripoli only shocked the people who were watching from a distance. Certainly the actions of the various governments involved did not reflect a sense of unexpected shock. Twitter is chaos personified of course, but even a jaded viewer of the news would be hard pressed to claim that nothing was reported on except Twitter.

And I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by football-style "rooting" for one side. Around here, I've not noticed any "Pro-rebel" tailgating parties going on (or for that matter, Pro-Assad ones). And besides, if I did notice such parties (the pro-rebel ones), I might join in. I celebrated Osama Bin Laden's death. I celebrated Gaddafi's. You can tell me I was wrong for doing so. You can tell me I supported the wrong side. You can even tell me that was in poor taste (which it was). But merely taking aside in the great issues of the days strikes me as a thing people should do more, not less. I hope this is not some further element of "all sides to all questions are wrong".

Most Americans can't directly affect the war in Syria. They can only watch from the sidelines. And given that, I should hope that most of them will choose to wish for the victory of the enemies of the dictator who has slaughtered his own people to remain in power, rather than for the dictator's victory. You're free, as usual, to disagree, or even to define both those outcomes as identical. But given that you're on record as believing that positive change is impossible in any form, in any context, you'll forgive me if I weigh those statements with a grain or two of salt.

[Josh]

And I'm sorry to say this, but... um... bite me?

What gets me (and I'm not saying anybody here does this) is the way that people will root for this shit like it's a football game, and that's where I see a lot of people who are all on about 'Assad's about to fall!' coming from. To me, the spectactor-sport nature that's settled on these particular revolts is demeaning.

To repeat:

(and I'm not saying anybody here does this)

Also, I'm on record as saying that positive change is impossible? Where?

Reading comprehension, sweet fucking Christ! You're strawmanning the fuck out of my positions at this point.

Few things to correct the record here and please do me the courtesy of actually reading what I'm saying before you fill in my position for me. I was quite happy to see Gaddafi go down. Didn't even care about how it happened, he still got off lighter than a lot of people that he put to death. Bin Laden's death was finishing a job that might well have been done in the nineties. Bastards getting killed doesn't sweat me in the slightest.

Jesus dude, you think I'm some kind of dictator-hugging peacenik? Like I'm Dennis fucking Kucinich or something? Like I eat tofu? Man, I cried at the end of Bambi because that stupid deer got away.

Now, what I am skeptical about until such time as it proves out is that a revolution is going to bring about any actual improvement. That's just being cautious and a student of history such as yourself should appreciate that full well because you could probably provide a much bigger list than I could for revolutions that won the war and lost the peace. If you just replace dictator A with dictator B, some day you'll be rooting for the downfall of dictator B.

Similarly just because a state calls itself a democracy doesn't mean shit. So until I see actual functional progress in that direction, I say hold off on the Roman candles. And when the Syrian rebels are saying 'Christians to Beirut and Alawites to the grave', I'm perhaps thinking that a post-Assad Syria may not be a very pleasant place either.

So when people pick sides in the style of a football team and root for them, with the tangible effect of donating money directly to them, and then the 'good guys' start filling mass graves, which may well happen, the people who were rooting will move on with their lives as if nothing happened, because to them it was just a foreign spectacle anyway. I understand why it happens, but it's almost voyeuristic in a way and like I said I think it's demeaning.

Is it a big big deal in the big big picture? Nah, just one of those things. It's not terribly widespread, just something I've seen in places.

Seriously dude, I'm starting to think that half your issues with me come from this NEGATIVE MAN persona you've constructed for me in your head. I'll freely admit to being a cynic and a skeptic, but I do remember when the wheel was invented and that shit was pretty cool. Prometheus stealing the fire was awesome too.

[General Havoc]

Reading comprehension, sweet fucking Christ! You're strawmanning the fuck out of my positions at this point.

Quick hint. Those who want to scream about reading comprehension and strawmen might want to practice what they preach. I asked you where this "Football game" style rooting thing was going on, a term you brought up. It's not a strawman when I literally repeat your own words. I also brought up that I supported one side of the various Arab Spring conflicts, to the extent of wishing some of the men involved dead. If you did as well, that's super. Even if you did not, however, stating my own opinions on the subject is also not a strawman. Nor, incidentally, is it a personal attack against you. It is an example of what my thoughts were on the subject. If you're not condemning that sort of position, what position are you condemning?

Few things to correct the record here and please do me the courtesy of actually reading what I'm saying before you fill in my position for me. I was quite happy to see Gaddafi go down. Didn't even care about how it happened, he still got off lighter than a lot of people that he put to death. Bin Laden's death was finishing a job that might well have been done in the nineties. Bastards getting killed doesn't sweat me in the slightest.

Jesus dude, you think I'm some kind of dictator-hugging peacenik? Like I'm Dennis fucking Kucinich or something? Like I eat tofu? Man, I cried at the end of Bambi because that stupid deer got away.

Nobody is accusing you of being anything resembling a dictator-hugging peacenik. I did not suggest that you eat Tofu, support Dennis Kucinich, or fail to cry in a properly manly fashion at Bambi. What I expressed were my opinions, in an attempt to suss out what you meant by football-style rooting for one side or another. Insofar as that term means anything at all to me, I proposed what I do as an example thereof, but as I don't know what this behavior you're speaking of is, I can't tell what you mean. I do not know anybody who roots for either side in the Syrian civil war as they would a football game. I don't even know how one would do that. If you don't simply mean picking a side that you wish to see win the war, then I frankly don't know what you do mean.

Now, what I am skeptical about until such time as it proves out is that a revolution is going to bring about any actual improvement. That's just being cautious and a student of history such as yourself should appreciate that full well because you could probably provide a much bigger list than I could for revolutions that won the war and lost the peace. If you just replace dictator A with dictator B, some day you'll be rooting for the downfall of dictator B.

Similarly just because a state calls itself a democracy doesn't mean shit. So until I see actual functional progress in that direction, I say hold off on the Roman candles. And when the Syrian rebels are saying 'Christians to Beirut and Alawites to the grave', I'm perhaps thinking that a post-Assad Syria may not be a very pleasant place either.

Given the situation in Syria as it stands, I'm prepared to take the risk of the Devil I don't know rather than the Devil I do. Is that easy to say from back here in America? Absolutely. But that doesn't make it less appropriate as I see it. The rebels might well start filling mass graves if they win. But Assad and company are presently filling mass graves, and have been doing so for months on end. I consider the possibility of mass graves to be a better alternative than the immediate reality of them. Plenty of revolutions do lose the peace (as you put it), but there are also some that don't, and when the situation is as bad as it is in Syria, one begins to wonder just how much worse it is likely to get without Assad.

So when people pick sides in the style of a football team and root for them, with the tangible effect of donating money directly to them, and then the 'good guys' start filling mass graves, which may well happen, the people who were rooting will move on with their lives as if nothing happened, because to them it was just a foreign spectacle anyway. I understand why it happens, but it's almost voyeuristic in a way and like I said I think it's demeaning.

What exactly does "picking sides in the style of a football team and rooting for them" consist of? Because the implication of that analogy is that, like a football game, it doesn't ultimately matter in the greater sense of things who wins and loses, and yet people care a great deal about the outcome despite this. If that's not the analogy you're trying to make, then perhaps a different metaphor would be appropriate, because I don't really know what you mean by it otherwise. Most people don't donate money to football teams they like (except of course in the sense of buying tickets and merchandise). I hold fairly strong allegiances to sports teams to whom I've never committed a penny. Is there some other aspect to football-style rooting that I'm missing here?

Is it a big big deal in the big big picture? Nah, just one of those things. It's not terribly widespread, just something I've seen in places.

Seriously dude, I'm starting to think that half your issues with me come from this NEGATIVE MAN persona you've constructed for me in your head. I'll freely admit to being a cynic and a skeptic, but I do remember when the wheel was invented and that shit was pretty cool. Prometheus stealing the fire was awesome too.

I don't care that you see things skeptically. I do care that you see them cynically, but you're well within your rights to do so. But please understand, my issue is not some amount of negativity, real or imagined. I don't agree with negativity in general, but it's certainly sometimes warranted, and even when it's not, it's as fair a position as any other.

No, my issue is with the implication that caring one way or the other about the issues of the day is foolish, pointless, or otherwise distasteful (the same issue I've had in previous conversations we've had). Perhaps you do not mean to imply that, but it is the implication I strongly get, mostly because I honestly don't see what you could mean by rooting for one side otherwise. If the position I have illustrated on the Syrian matter is not football-style rooting, which you have indicated it is not, then, to repeat myself, what is?

[Josh]

Okay, to answer the main point:

In another forum I lurk at, a very large and well-trafficked one, there were various people who were talking about how exciting it all was after the bombing that took out Assad's people. There was a lot of 'Is it the endgame yet?' and high-volume traffic that essentially amounted to 'Yay! Our team's winning!'

At the end, call it something like the line about obscenity, knowing it when you see it. Another guy put it better than I have, that some people are treating this like it's a real-time Band of Brothers and running around looking for Youtube videos.

Strip the potential dubiousness of the rebels out of it altogether. Let's say they're the saintliest saints who've ever walked the Earth, they're still people who are fighting and dying and other people completely disconnected from the situation are, to my mind, viewing it as war porn. I'm not saying that it should be prohibited or anything ridiculous like that, it just doesn't sit right with me. This is a human struggle with human consequences that will play out over decades and beyond.

Which also gets into the whole caring/not caring thing. If I didn't think caring about things was kosher, I obviously wouldn't give a shit about this now would I?

As for the rest, I'm not even going to get into it. I'd like to ask a favor here: in the future, if you have something specific with my attitude, why not send a PM? I generally answer promptly. I'm pretty tired of derailing a thread every few days so that you can go on about my cynicism. Fuck, if you want to go into it publicly, start a "Why so cynical?" thread or whatever. The reason I get irritable is because this shit gets old- I come to talk about Syria and get this appeal to motive bullshit about how I don't believe that anything positive can ever happen or whatever.

Every. Time. We disagree.

Finally, to address the reading comprehension bit... that was specifically to answer this:

and I'm not saying anybody here does this

Which you answered with this:

Around here, I've not noticed any "Pro-rebel" tailgating parties going on (or for that matter, Pro-Assad ones).

Which in retrospect I can say you were possibly referring to your actual immediate physical environs and not this board. If I misread your context, I'll withdraw my profanity-laden emphatically punctuated sarcasm.

[General Havoc]

Which in retrospect I can say you were possibly referring to your actual immediate physical environs and not this board. If I misread your context, I'll withdraw my profanity-laden emphatically punctuated sarcasm.

Erm... well to start with, yes. That is actually precisely what I was referring to, as I assumed that you were also referring to some sort of behavior in your immediate physical locale. I live in one of the most Liberal places in the country, and therefore many practices that people from other parts consider common are entirely unknown here. I don't know where you're located, Josh, but I know that the bubble of the Bay Area is a strange place, and that therefore you may be party to, or indeed inundated I confess, I did not even recognize that my comment might have been interpreted as referring to the board until you just mentioned it, though I do see how it could be so-viewed now.

As for the rest, I'm not even going to get into it. I'd like to ask a favor here: in the future, if you have something specific with my attitude, why not send a PM? I generally answer promptly. I'm pretty tired of derailing a thread every few days so that you can go on about my cynicism. Fuck, if you want to go into it publicly, start a "Why so cynical?" thread or whatever. The reason I get irritable is because this shit gets old- I come to talk about Syria and get this appeal to motive bullshit about how I don't believe that anything positive can ever happen or whatever.

Every. Time. We disagree.

Look, you get irritable because you get appeal to motive bullshit about your attitude? Fine. I won't debate that. But consider that I, like you, come into this thread to discuss Syria, and get, in response to my comment on the subject, a lecture about how people I don't know on another board I don't frequent express opinions I've never read in a disrespectful manner, all without reference to the board, the opinions, or the manner in question. Your statement that you were not referring to us notwithstanding, what exactly am I to do with a reply to my opinion that rooting for one side "football-style" is bad? The logical inference (from my perspective) is that desiring the victory of one side is wrong or pernicious.

I do not harp on this subject randomly. I do it because I object to the concept that it's unacceptable to take sides on issues like that. I accept that this isn't what you meant to say, but it certainly sounded like it was, just as it did on the previous occasions when we've had this same argument. I'm hardly the paragon of being clear, nor some sort of objective guru, but if you'd prefer that I not leap to these sorts of conclusions (which is fair enough), may I ask in return that you try to make your actual point somewhat clearer in the future?

[Josh]

Alright.

Looking back at it, you probably took what I was saying as a shot at your specific attitude, which is not what I intended. On the other hand, my point about the attitude shit stands and crap about how I don't think 'anything positive can happen ever' is a wholly unsubstantiated hyperbolic appeal to motive.

I'll aim to be clearer. But I'll also strive to completely disregard disagreements rooted in 'You're so cynical!' because you're not going to change my attitude at rhetorical gunpoint and I'm not interested in trying to change yours.