True. Is is obvious today that the syrian army didn't fight, thus either the leadership left or changed sides.
Well, the fact that Assad was nowhere to be seen during most of the offensive tell you all you need to know about the Syrian "leadership". He could have made a television appearance to reassure his people. He could have filmed himself walking around Damascus à la Zelensky. After all, he had done similar publicity stunts in the past, for example filming himself driving near the front line:
But it seemed like from very early on, he knew there was no way to win this one. So he barely even tried to fight, even on the propaganda front. His stans on Twitter were forced to hype up imaginary paratrooper offensives encircling the rebels. Assad fled the country, and it's likely that most high-ranking Baathists did the same since there's been no news of any being captured. Meanwhile, it seems like members of the government less stained by their association with the regime have made deals with rebels. The Baathist Prime Minister is cooperating with them to supervise the transition. And there are rumors that he was in contact with them for days before the capture of Damascus, which suggests that for many on both sides the fall of the regime was a foregone conclusion. There are also rumors of defection among SAA officers.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024...-state-bodies-until-transition-al-julani-says
Meanwhile, the rebels have done a much better job at propaganda, both through traditional and social media. Al-Jolani had time to give interviews to CNN and the New York Times. He was filmed, victorious, visiting Aleppo's symbolic citadel. He promised to tolerate Christians and other minorities. Hell, some non-Sunni towns even decided to stay neutral and let the rebels enter, such as the Shi'ites of Salamiyah.
https://www.syriahr.com/en/350670/
They know, the soldiers themselves know, that the terrorists have a habit of summarily executing (or torturing and execuuting) them after surrendering. So what happened to all those woldeirs with weapons?
This reminded me a bit of the collapse of Iraqi forces against the ISIS blitz of 2014. The Iraqi soldiers and civilians had everything to lose from ISIS. Yet, their defense collapsed or they fled, despite knowing what ISIS had in store for them (or maybe because of an overwhelming fear of it). This was shown by the massacre at Camp Speicher where ISIS executed hundreds of Iraqi soldiers. Soldiers, as any individuals, make decisions based on their personal interests when they can, and sometimes they're wrong.
If many SAA soldiers didn't fight, it's probably that they thought that there was more to lose by fighting than by giving up. Maybe they didn't want to risk their life for a cause they didn't believe in (either ideologically, or pragmatically because they thought it was doomed). Or they simply didn't want to fight for something that didn't pay well. They might have thought that resistance against the rebels might incur punishment after losing the war. Conversely, they might have thought that by giving up on fighting, the rebels might let them live to see another day. While it is expected that the rebels might try to get revenge on high-ranking members of the Syrian Army and Baath Party, there is no logical reason for them to execute young conscript soldiers who barely even fought for the regime. Only with time will we be able to weed out the propaganda and get an accurate picture of what happened. But it seems like the SAA soldiers had very low morale. Some surrendered, but it others simply fled and tried to lie low by changing into civilian clothes, or even defected to the rebels.
But one of the main issues since the beginning of this war for Assad is that the people who had the most interest in the survival of the regime were also the most privileged and thus the least likely to fight. The Damascus bourgeoisie or the Alawite elite might have wanted the regime to survive, but they sure as hell wouldn't go fight in the trenches. Meanwhile, it was easier for the rebels to recruit Sunni jihadists willing to die for a cause (or for a shot at something better).
Also, neither Iran nor Russia made any effort to back Syria's government this time.
So the question is why all this?
Does this really need to be asked?
Assad survival and reversal of fortune from 2015-2020 mostly occurred because of rebel infighting and foreign help (Russian, Iran, Hezbollah, and other Iranian-backed militias). He didn't do much to pay back that foreign "debt", other than providing a port for Russia and a corridor for Iran to the Mediterranean Sea. Not that there was much he could provide anyway. He didn't get involve in the Israel/Palestine/Lebanon conflict. And he tried to normalize relations with Arab countries opposed to Iran. His regime was plagued by authoritarianism, corruption and nepotism. It didn't represent the will of a large proportion of Syrians. Is it a surprise then that so few were willing to lay their life for the regime?
Meanwhile, HTS managed to build a modern effective combat force. They also managed (at least temporarily for now) to solve the biggest issue that had plagued the rebels since the beginning which was infighting. They played the propaganda game well. And the diplomatic game too, at least considering their Al Qaeda background. They got Turkey to ensure their survival without becoming complete puppets like the TFSA. And it seemed, like they agreed to some form of non-aggression with the SDF.
Once the lightning offensive of HTS captured Aleppo, it seemed like nothing could revert the collapse in morale and in cohesion of the SAA. From 2012 to 2016, the SAA had fought to keep Aleppo and triumphed after more than 4 years of fighting. Only to loose the country's (previous?) biggest city in 3 days in 2024. What kind of outside help could have helped after that? Syria's foreign backers would have needed to believe in a Syrian Army that didn't believe in itself.
Russia had just a token force on the ground. Its soldiers are busy losing their limbs in the mud of Ukraine. Wagner is busy propping tinpot dictators in Africa. The Russian Air Force did bomb the rebels for the few days the combat lasted. But what was the point with no effective ground force? The main priority was organizing a withdrawal of their personnel and equipment in the face of certain defeat for Assad's forces.
Iran and the foreign militias it backs possibly tried to send some help. But they only have a land corridor near Al-Bukamal and Deir ez-Zor, where their convoys get bombed by US Air Force.
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-S...estroys-threatening-weapons-systems-in-syria/
Hezbollah was decimated by its war against Israel. Some Hezbollah soldiers crossed into Syria. And their route got bombed by Israel. They were quickly called back to Lebanon a few days later.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-s...-crossings-used-by-hezbollah-to-smuggle-arms/
The war is not over yet. If history is any clue, the jihadi rebels will start fighting among themselves. And the Turkish lapdogs in the North are already trying to conquer Manbij from the SDF. The only good outcome might be that some foreign powers might stop pouring cash and arms into Syria, seeing it as an endless money pit.
bsky.app
Rebels detained Assad's prime minister this morning, he will sign the transfer of power, sadly there was not available seats in Assad's private jet.
