The Syrian Invasion

Would a NATO tank war against Bashar al-Assad’s army end up like the Iraqi mess?

BY MICHAEL PECK | JANUARY 10, 2012

The Shock Force campaigns consist a series of linked battles, each of which must be won before progressing to the next. I won't delve into each battle, which tended to be roughly similar struggles with NATO forces attempting to dislodge dug-in Syrian defenders. What's more interesting are the lessons learned. The battles often depended on the quality of the defenders. Sometimes the game felt like Iraq in 2003, with the Syrian side made up of conscript infantry and fedayeen armed with a few rocket propelled-grenades and machine guns. Other times, the game felt like Lebanon in 2006, with hidden Syrian commandos using advanced Russian-made Kornet anti-tank missiles to blow holes in my Leopard 2 tanks and Marder troop carriers.

As the German commander, I hoped that the Syrians would channel Stalin in 1941 and try to fight in the open against my blitzkrieg. Instead, Shock Force's computer-controlled Syrians, who may or may not be smarter than Assad's actual generals (who haven't fought a real war in 30 years, much less a victorious one), retreated to the villages and cities. There my 10th Panzer division faced a dilemma that would afflict any NATO force: I had plenty of advanced vehicles and firepower to pulverize urban terrain, but relatively little infantry to occupy it. The Germans lose victory points for inflicting civilian casualties or damaging mosques and schools, though the United States is not penalized for doing this (oh, my, have things changed since World War II). But in a war of village strongpoints, either you have the infantry and the stomach for street battles, or you stand back and blast away before sending the grunts in to comb the rubble. I found myself using more firepower than finesse, and advancing very slowly, because I could not afford to lose half an infantry squad in a sudden ambush. The Germans in Shock Force are powerful but fragile; they never receive any replacement equipment or men during the course of the campaign (like NATO running short of munitions during the Libya campaign), and automatically lose if they take more than 15 percent casualties in a single battle. The old 10th Panzer division might have fought to the death in Russia (they actually surrendered in North Africa) for their glory of the Fatherland, but their successors are in no hurry to die for regime change in the Middle East.

Shock Force is not a predictive game of a NATO invasion of Syria. Even as a simulation of modern combat, it has flaws, such as omitting the unmanned aircraft that would give today's commanders a great deal of battlefield intelligence. There are also no Hezbollah or Iranian "volunteers" aiding Assad (though the game's scenario editor allows players to add them), nor rebel soldiers and volunteers to help NATO (assuming they would help the invaders rather than fight them).

And because the game is tactical, it does not address the strategic truth, which is that the minute the first NATO tank crossed the border, the Assad regime would be doomed. The Syrians simply lack the advanced military capabilities needed to halt a NATO advance. But an invasion would still face military realities at the tactical level, where the resultant body count would have strategic resonance for Western and world public opinion. Germany opposed sending troops to aid the Libyan rebels last year; a bloody ground war in Syria could easily result in regime-change in Berlin as well as Damascus.

The question is what price can the doomed dictator extract, and it is there that a game like Shock Force is illuminating. If the Syrian military disintegrates, or if it is only effective when shooting unarmed civilians, then a NATO intervention would be relatively -- though not totally -- bloodless. But if an Alawite-dominated Syrian army, with its back to the wall and fearing retribution by the Sunni majority, fights to the last, then they have enough advanced weapons and defensible terrain to inflict politically damaging losses. Maybe the Assad regime would prove to be a paper tiger. But don't count on a blitzkrieg on the road to Damascus.

 SUBJECTS: ARAB WORLD
 

Michael Peck is gaming editor at Foreign Policy.

KBC

5:31 PM ET

January 10, 2012

and Syria becomes the next Iraq

The war in Syria in two weeks and American forces are in Damascus. The Western media shows the pictures of liberated people tearing down the statue of Hafez al Assad. President Obama gives his mission accomplished speech in Hawaii.

The Sunni Shia civil war erupts in Syria. The Shia are supported by Iran and members of Hezbollah are participating in Shia terrorism. Saudis are giving full support to the new Sunni led government of Syrian government. The Christian minority of Syria is under attack and Christians are migrating to other countries.

 

COUNTCHOCULA1011

6:21 PM ET

January 10, 2012

It's none of our business....and it's not gonna happen anyway

Why?

American politicians don't care about helping Arabs. This has and always will be a pretense to invading Middle Eastern nations in order to acquire access to their oil reserves. I wouldn't support any invasion of Syria for a totally different reason--I think it's none of our business to be the world police--but I can assure you, they will never invade Syria because there isn't any oil. If you believe politicians invade the Middle East because they love Arabs, you're a complete f***ing retard. End of story.

 

ANON45

7:03 PM ET

January 10, 2012

You're just shoehorning your own conclusions.

Venezuela has oil and is closer to home, why havn't we invaded them Genius?

Just because there is no invasion doesn't mean it is because there is no oil.

It is not a good policy to go assuming everything a politician says is a lie. No doubt the US isn't going to invade Syria, but I believe "No oil" is not the reason (or at least not a significant reason), but a combination of war weariness across the spectrum of allies, the lack of direct threat to the US or its allies that this civil war entails, the lack of any organized resistance to give a homegrown legitimacy to it, and especially the geopolitical value Syria has to Russia (shown by sending a fleet there) are reasons. Any one of these would be more compelling than a "NO OIL NO INVASION!" soundbyte.

 

VICTORIA72

7:31 PM ET

January 10, 2012

just the coup

Haven't invaded but did help put together the coup attempt in 2002. The problem America has with venezuela is that they have signed trade aggreements with France, Spain, China, Russia, Iran, Qatar, and India...disrupting those whilst America turned Venezuela into the next afghanistan would not go down well. And whilst I doubt they give a cr*p what Spain think China and Russia are a totally different kettle of fish.

Syria is the home to a Russian naval base, America doesn't want a russian naval presence in the mediterranean just as it didn't want Chinese oil investments in Libya - there's a game bigger than oil going on and the superpowers are jostling to make sure they have a seat when the music stops.

 

1853N

8:25 PM ET

January 10, 2012

Dear truther

"I can assure you, they will never invade Syria because there isn't any oil."

Here we go again...

Does the intervention in Libya last year fit in with this theory, as well? Was the entire event just a big conspiracy orchestrated by the "1%" to steal arab oil?

Or was it rather an international intervention (and a successful one, at that), of a brutal crackdown on unarmed civilians, committed by a mass-murdering, totalitarian dictatorship, lead by the United States?

I tend to lean more to the left than to the right on most matters, but there are few things that sicken me more about the lefties in my country (Norway, in case you're wondering), than the whole: "It's not our business, stop being western imperialists and let them figure it out for themselves"-attitude. Whould it have been better to let Libya end up like Rwanda? Look me in the eyes and say yes, i dare you.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that it must feel frustrating to have your country not only involved, but usually taking a leading role in most of these conflicts (and starting quite a few of them). And i agree that alot of very bad decisions have been made by your country. Shameful ones, even. But such is the track-record of all super-powers throughout history, and believe it or not, your country has also done a whole lot of good for the world. More than most, in my opinion.

So please. Take of the tinfoil-hat and put out the doobie (no offense, doobie-enthusiasts. Tinfoil-hat wearers one the other hand, may take a little offense), and stop talking like a (as you so eloquently put it), f***ing retard.

 

ZERSKI

1:37 AM ET

January 11, 2012

Could it be?

A perfectly reasonable response on Foreign Policy? A few words that aren't dripping with anti-American venom? 1853n, you just made my day.

 

GOMER_RS

5:00 AM ET

January 11, 2012

Then how do explain Syria?

All their oil was being exploited by NATO countries Turkey and Italy, and going to Europe at market rates. For a new government we earned, 6-8 month market disruption and the threat of NATO allies Turkey and Italy losing their oil duopoly in Libya.

Where is the enlightened self interest in that action?

 

GOMER_RS

5:02 AM ET

January 11, 2012

How do explain Lybia.

Mean Libya not Syria, which lacks significant reserves.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

7:44 PM ET

January 11, 2012

1853n, its funny you say that ...

... because Libya has a lot more oil than Syria, yet, despite the fact that the Syrian military has killed just as many innocent people, there has been no intervention. Then there is Bahrain, where it is an American-backed crony killing his own people. Or does the USA only intervene when their leader is a nutty goofball like Gaddafi?

 

AARKY

10:56 PM ET

January 11, 2012

Who allowed this Ridiculous Article?

This all Bullshit!!! Why would the Germans get involved? Why would the Turks allow the Germans to unload and pass through their country to attack Syria? It would be judged as a war of aggression. The Germans would not allow the US and the Israelis to con them into doing their dirty work.

 

HECTORGREG11

7:10 PM ET

February 8, 2012

shamwow

American politicians don't care about helping Arabs. This has and always will be a pretense to invading Middle Eastern nations in order rehab florida to acquire access to their oil reserves. I wouldn't support any invasion of Syria for a totally different reason--I think it's none of our business to be the world police--but I can assure youautorepairaustintx.org, they will never invade Syria because there isn't any oil. If you believe politicians invade the Middle East because they love Arabs, apartments austin txEnd of story.

 

MAHMOU2D

10:00 PM ET

January 10, 2012

war approach

Given American war weariness and the administration's reluctance to even take the lead in Libya, taking down Assad would probably be a NATO operation

 

JULIEMEME

3:07 AM ET

January 11, 2012

Non stop war,many people have

Non stop war,many people have died and sacrifice themselves. poems for funerals

 

KUNINO

10:18 AM ET

January 11, 2012

Note the headline ...

... which bullshits us into the understanding that there is, in fact, a Syrian invasion. There isn't, and notably, nobody outside Syria seems to want one. Mob spokespersons in Syria keep on asking for one, and acting betrayed because they can't whistle up an invading force, much like hailing a cab.

The simple answer to the question about what will happen if Mr al-Assad is deposed by a violent revolution or foreign invasion (necessarily another form of violence) is that some sort of mob would take over. I see Iraq is singled out in this article, but a mob seems to have taken over in Libya, and whoever took over in Egypt seems to be turning into a mob or series of mobs whose mighty works are displayed by a series of grave physical attacks on Christian Egyptians -- of a type that evidently Hosni Mubarak was restraining for many years, and Saddam Hussein had been squashing similarly in Iraq.

No reason to think Syria would be much different. There is a long-established Christian community living in peace there. I see no foreign correspondents looking into whether members of this long-secure community are packing up to move under the present disturbances. Interesting issue.

Current war-hungering folks seem to operate on the belief that all revolutions are, simply, good. This perhaps is based on the historic reality that under British ownership more than two centuries ago, the colonists of the United States had entrenched forms of peaceful local government and highly educated professionals. It wasn't a mob that took over in the 1770s. We're seeing from other parts of the world at present just how lucky America was.

 

JAYDEE001

12:16 PM ET

January 11, 2012

This is pure speculation.

A "war game editor" wrote this article. That's a new job-title, and one for an interesting discussion at another time, perhaps. Why does Foreign Policy have a "war game editor"? The major flaw in his discussion is that, unlike the digitally created battles and casualties so frequent in war games, any actual Syrian conflict would come with real human hardship and real dead bodies. At the end of the "game", there would be real human costs to tote up.

The only hope I could see is that NATO, the Germans, or any other putative invading powers might be just as reticent about getting mired in another Arab civil war as the US finally seems to be, and might ultimately consider the whole idea a very bad one.

Yes, it might be better if President Assad were gone, just as it is better that Qaddafi has been removed. But the dust has not settled on Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya yet, and it is just as likely that hard-line Islamic fundamentalists will come to power - through democratic elections, of course (already happening in Tunisia and Egypt), who will change the political shape of the Middle East and North Africa. The rights and safety of religious and ethnic minorities certainly would not fare as well after the revolution as before, and the change may not be what western interests had hoped for, any more than Iraq post-Saddam is turning out to be what some US politicians hoped for. That's the funny thing about revolutions - you never get exactly what you expected or wanted. Let the Syrians figure it out for themselves - for better of for worse.

 

CIENPORCIEN

5:38 PM ET

January 11, 2012

Why

Why should one think "possible" scenerarios? It is already planned and decided. Weapons pour from the Lebanon border. The US propaganda machine is working. It's all done, guys.
Loja Sao Paulo

 

AFGHANGOOD

9:44 AM ET

January 12, 2012

Let's not even contemplate it...

Syria is not Libya, so you can bet your butts that NATO military intervention in Syria would be a disaster of epic proportions. Syria has a far more capable military than most of the other countries in the middle east, and while they certainly won't be able to withstand a full onslaught from NATO (in other words, the US military), they most likely will not succumb to an air war. They have an upgraded air defense system, so lightening raid, as Israel launched to take out their nuclear project is one thing, but a concerted air campaign would deliver losses. Given the war fatigue in most NATO countries, this would end badly for those politicians who green-light this escapade. Most importantly, it would be action without UN consent, making it illegal and I have to say, Iraq and Iran would HIGHLY object, and likely sneak fighters and supplies over the border into Syria. What it would also do is pressure the Shia governments in Iran and Iraq to close ranks and form an even tighter union...who freaking wants that! We had better hope the sides can come together and find some settlement that eventual leads to some peaceful change. War would bring about a serious issue for Europe, and the world.