Really. It did. Militarily, the French army destroyed the FLN by the end of 1958.
Had France not possessed a democratic government, Algeria would have remained a part of France for a very long time. This has bearing on the Syrian civil war. Hopefully, Doug and I will have time to explain why in the near future. For now, we leave it as an exercise for the reader.
The rebels’ big problem is the lack of a unified chain of command. As a result, they screw up operationally what they win tactically. The regime’s big problem is a lack of manpower. Roughly 200,000 loyalist troops are trying to defeat 40,000 insurgents.
Consider the difficulties. It needs to stop the fighting from spreading further around Aleppo. (Rebels entered the city today.) It also needs to take on and reoccupy the rebel strongholds around Homs. Finally, it needs to prevent the rebels from operating freely around Idlib and Hama. That is a tall order.
The problem is that Assad is on course to defeat, but not quickly, and not against a unified force. There is no FLN ready to take over. There are only two ways to end it quickly, neither likely. One, outsiders can pick a rebel force and back it. Two, the Russians (or somebody) can give the Syrian army the resources it needs to massively expand the draft and go on the offensive without risking the areas it currently holds. (It is now trying to substitute capital for labor, by using artillery and helicopter gunships.)
I bet that Assad will make it to the end of the calendar year, just not really in power.
C.J. Chivers makes the case that the correlation of forces (he doesn't use the term) has shifted irrevocably against Assad and his army -- that they are, as I wrote in my post on Qaddafi last May, trying to climb a slope that is only going to get steeper:
http://cjchivers.com/post/27621199997/syrias-army-and-the-i-e-d-a-report-on-the-new
I'm not sure I agree -- but he makes a strong and well-informed case.
Doug M.
Posted by: Doug M. | July 24, 2012 at 01:04 PM
I'm in agreement. I think Assad will still be fighting, but not in power.
I'll explain the Algerian War reference. I think readers will assume the implication is the opposite of what it really is.
I should stop being cryptic like that, I know, but it is fun.
Posted by: Noel Maurer | July 24, 2012 at 03:29 PM