Question About Syria

[Elixir]

Obama's strategy was to try, over and over and over again, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, to find a rebel group that wanted to institute a secular liberal democracy.

"Ah, we found one. Whoops, they're religious radicals. Ah, maybe this one. Nope, they're also religious radicals."

Trump is actually worse than Obama on Syria. Assad is getting close to finally ending the civil war, someone uses gas attacks. There is no reason for Assad to do so, therefore he gets the blame. Trump declares yet again that Assad has to go, Putin tells Trump that the Russians will defend Assad. Trump says the US will launch missiles. Putin says Russia will shoot the missiles down. Trump says the US has smart missiles.

Worst puppet ever, really.

Putin should just release the tape
It's time already.

Hear here!
Now that every kid in America know how to use the word "shit-hole" and knows what a porn star is, what damage could it really do to let them watch the pee-party?

 

[Politesse]

What would be the repercussions of the US pulling out and leaving Syria to Assad and the Russians?

What will be the repercussions is more the question. This outcome is inevitable in the long run, we will eventually be forced to withdraw from an active conflict, whether for reasons of economics, political will, or both. This is a garland war, not a traditional conquest.

 

[LordKiran]

It's twitter drama, just like with North Korea. Trump might not formally withdraw from Syria, but I don't see him starting a shooting war with Assad either.

Remember when Trump had a secret plan to defeat Isis but didnt want to share it publicly so they(Isis) wouldn't know about it?

I know we all know that was total bullshit but I wonder if his voters ever think about these things while he's openly threatening our political rivals on Twitter...JK I know they don't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Obama's strategy was to try, over and over and over again, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, to find a rebel group that wanted to institute a secular liberal democracy.

"Ah, we found one. Whoops, they're religious radicals. Ah, maybe this one. Nope, they're also religious radicals."

Yup, Obama really didn't get it about the jihadis.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Obama's strategy was to try, over and over and over again, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, to find a rebel group that wanted to institute a secular liberal democracy.

"Ah, we found one. Whoops, they're religious radicals. Ah, maybe this one. Nope, they're also religious radicals."

Yup, Obama really didn't get it about the jihadis.

Neither did his neocon advisors.

 

[repoman]

I think that maybe America needs to nut up and say, "We are motherfucking imperialists and we are doing this for crude political advantage. Syria is our enemy because it is our enemy and we will knock its dick in the dirt because we can."

Julius Ceasar didn't have to deal with these lying ass PR campaigns, he just invaded and conquered.

I can respect that at least. But maybe we would have to give our soldiers nice war booty instead of paying them with cheap as fuck "honor and respect".

This maudlin display of empathy is pathetic.

 

[J842P]

I think that maybe America needs to nut up and say, "We are motherfucking imperialists and we are doing this for crude political advantage. Syria is our enemy because it is our enemy and we will knock its dick in the dirt because we can."

Julius Ceasar didn't have to deal with these lying ass PR campaigns, he just invaded and conquered.

I can respect that at least. But maybe we would have to give our soldiers nice war booty instead of paying them with cheap as fuck "honor and respect".

This maudlin display of empathy is pathetic.

I agree. I could at least respect that position, instead, they go with untenable moral outrage.

Of course, I completely disagree that toppling Assad is in our interests, but at least I could respect that argument.

 

[Copernicus]

Much of the Syria situation is driven by two factors:

1) Russian desire for a permanent Mediterranean naval base. Assad gives them that, so they support Assad.
2) Iranian desire to keep a minority Shiite religious sect in charge of Syria. So they are allied with Assad and Russia.

The Saudis are interested in seeing a Sunni regime take power in Syria. The Kurds want territory from which to expand their drive for international recognition as a Kurdish nation. The Turks want to block the Kurds.

The US has no basic strategic interest there. It is caught in a battle that it is ill-equipped to play a role in and cannot possibly win by military means. Its only real interest is in its NATO ally, Turkey, which is now run by an unstable, unreliable dictator. So it is probably best that the US withdraw now. Whatever positive role that it could have played has long since been shredded, when its credibility as a Middle East peace broker was shredded by Trump's nutty Israeli policy.

 

[Jayjay]

Much of the Syria situation is driven by two factors:

1) Russian desire for a permanent Mediterranean naval base. Assad gives them that, so they support Assad.
2) Iranian desire to keep a minority Shiite religious sect in charge of Syria. So they are allied with Assad and Russia.

The Saudis are interested in seeing a Sunni regime take power in Syria. The Kurds want territory from which to expand their drive for international recognition as a Kurdish nation. The Turks want to block the Kurds.

The US has no basic strategic interest there. It is caught in a battle that it is ill-equipped to play a role in and cannot possibly win by military means. Its only real interest is in its NATO ally, Turkey, which is now run by an unstable, unreliable dictator. So it is probably best that the US withdraw now. Whatever positive role that it could have played has long since been shredded, when its credibility as a Middle East peace broker was shredded by Trump's nutty Israeli policy.

Israel is one of the main remaining reasons to stay in Syria. Israel wants Syria as a mess because Syria is the main supply route for Hezbollah. Also nobody will really bat an eye when Israel bombs bases in Syria as long as the war is going on. It would be harder if there is peace.

 

[barbos]

Obama's strategy was to try, over and over and over again, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, to find a rebel group that wanted to institute a secular liberal democracy.

"Ah, we found one. Whoops, they're religious radicals. Ah, maybe this one. Nope, they're also religious radicals."

Yup, Obama really didn't get it about the jihadis.

Neither did his neocon advisors.

I disagree, I think everything is going well and according to their plan. jihadists are irrelevant and or in fact useful in creating chaos and problems in countries neocons consider bad and deserving to be regime-changed into US-puppets.

 

[barbos]

Much of the Syria situation is driven by two factors:

1) Russian desire for a permanent Mediterranean naval base. Assad gives them that, so they support Assad.
2) Iranian desire to keep a minority Shiite religious sect in charge of Syria. So they are allied with Assad and Russia.

The Saudis are interested in seeing a Sunni regime take power in Syria. The Kurds want territory from which to expand their drive for international recognition as a Kurdish nation. The Turks want to block the Kurds.

The US has no basic strategic interest there. It is caught in a battle that it is ill-equipped to play a role in and cannot possibly win by military means. Its only real interest is in its NATO ally, Turkey, which is now run by an unstable, unreliable dictator. So it is probably best that the US withdraw now. Whatever positive role that it could have played has long since been shredded, when its credibility as a Middle East peace broker was shredded by Trump's nutty Israeli policy.

Israel is one of the main remaining reasons to stay in Syria. Israel wants Syria as a mess because Syria is the main supply route for Hezbollah. Also nobody will really bat an eye when Israel bombs bases in Syria as long as the war is going on. It would be harder if there is peace.

Yeah, I never understood why current version Assad continued this ancient arab competition of "Who hates jews more?". He looks more pro-western than Erdogan, but I guess populace wants hating jews and he can't go against that.

 

[Jayjay]

Much of the Syria situation is driven by two factors:

1) Russian desire for a permanent Mediterranean naval base. Assad gives them that, so they support Assad.
2) Iranian desire to keep a minority Shiite religious sect in charge of Syria. So they are allied with Assad and Russia.

The Saudis are interested in seeing a Sunni regime take power in Syria. The Kurds want territory from which to expand their drive for international recognition as a Kurdish nation. The Turks want to block the Kurds.

The US has no basic strategic interest there. It is caught in a battle that it is ill-equipped to play a role in and cannot possibly win by military means. Its only real interest is in its NATO ally, Turkey, which is now run by an unstable, unreliable dictator. So it is probably best that the US withdraw now. Whatever positive role that it could have played has long since been shredded, when its credibility as a Middle East peace broker was shredded by Trump's nutty Israeli policy.

Israel is one of the main remaining reasons to stay in Syria. Israel wants Syria as a mess because Syria is the main supply route for Hezbollah. Also nobody will really bat an eye when Israel bombs bases in Syria as long as the war is going on. It would be harder if there is peace.

Yeah, I never understood why current version Assad continued this ancient arab competition of "Who hates jews more". He looks more pro-western than Erdogan, but I guess populace wants hating jews and he can't go against that.

It's not about hating Jews. It's his closeness to Iran, and certain factions in Lebanon (which Syria occupied until 2005). Also, Golan Heights is the excuse for keeping emergency laws in place that let him do what he wants.

 

[barbos]

Yeah, I never understood why current version Assad continued this ancient arab competition of "Who hates jews more". He looks more pro-western than Erdogan, but I guess populace wants hating jews and he can't go against that.

It's not about hating Jews. It's his closeness to Iran, and certain factions in Lebanon (which Syria occupied until 2005). Also, Golan Heights is the excuse for keeping emergency laws in place that let him do what he wants.

So you admit that Assad is not evil and this is all just politics and he has very little choice in it?
Why West can't work keeping that in mind? why this constant Axis of Evil crap?
Why West find it acceptable for them to support Saudi Arabia but can't accept Assad? Oh wait, oil.
West had had lot of time before 2011 to buy Assad, instead they choose to overthrow him without any thought about what it would cost to Syrian people.

 

[Jayjay]

Yeah, I never understood why current version Assad continued this ancient arab competition of "Who hates jews more". He looks more pro-western than Erdogan, but I guess populace wants hating jews and he can't go against that.

It's not about hating Jews. It's his closeness to Iran, and certain factions in Lebanon (which Syria occupied until 2005). Also, Golan Heights is the excuse for keeping emergency laws in place that let him do what he wants.

So you admit that Assad is not evil and this is all just politics and he has very little choice in it?
Why West can't work keeping that in mind? why this constant Axis of Evil crap?
Why West find it acceptable for them to support Saudi Arabia but can't accept Assad? Oh wait, oil.
West had had lot of time before 2011 to buy Assad, instead they choose to overthrow him without any thought about what it would cost to Syrian people.

Of course Assad is "evil". But so is Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Maybe his chemical weapons use puts him slightly ahead if you want to split hairs, but the crap that Saudis are doing in Yemen is in the same ballpark of evilness. As for buying Assad, that wasn't an option, due to aforementioned ties between Syria and Iran on one hand, and Syria and Russia on the other. And the west didn't really try very hard to overthrow him.

 

[barbos]

So you admit that Assad is not evil and this is all just politics and he has very little choice in it?
Why West can't work keeping that in mind? why this constant Axis of Evil crap?
Why West find it acceptable for them to support Saudi Arabia but can't accept Assad? Oh wait, oil.
West had had lot of time before 2011 to buy Assad, instead they choose to overthrow him without any thought about what it would cost to Syrian people.

Of course Assad is "evil". But so is Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Maybe his chemical weapons use puts him slightly ahead if you want to split hairs,

You really believe he used chemical weapons? When he was micron close to end his "opposition" all of a sudden he gets this brilliant idea to gas a bunch of children because well, reasons, I mean "evil". And people who are about to lose their fight with Assad are not and have absolutely no rational or tactical reasons to frame Assad. You don't smell a rat here?

but the crap that Saudis are doing in Yemen is in the same ballpark of evilness. As for buying Assad, that wasn't an option, due to aforementioned ties between Syria and Iran on one hand, and Syria and Russia on the other. And the west didn't really try very hard to overthrow him.

I don't know about Iran, but you can buy Assad without making Russia sad. Russia has no problem with Israel and if US offered Assad a deal where he stops being nice to terrorists and he gets off the list plus some economic assistance he might as well take it. Iran is not going to invade Syria. And US has bought a lot of their Middle East allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan).

 

[Jayjay]

You really believe he used chemical weapons? When he was micron close to end his "opposition" all of a sudden he gets this brilliant idea to gas a bunch of children because well, reasons, I mean "evil". And people who are about to lose their fight with Assad are not and have absolutely no rational or tactical reasons to frame Assad. You don't smell a rat here?

He didn't get the idea all of a sudden. He just got caught this time. The question of "why use chemical weapons now that he's winning" is like asking, why is he using tanks or guns? Because that's what weapons are for.

but the crap that Saudis are doing in Yemen is in the same ballpark of evilness. As for buying Assad, that wasn't an option, due to aforementioned ties between Syria and Iran on one hand, and Syria and Russia on the other. And the west didn't really try very hard to overthrow him.

I don't know about Iran, but you can buy Assad without making Russia sad. Russia has no problem with Israel and if US offered Assad a deal where he stops being nice to terrorists and he gets off the list plus some economic assistance he might as well take it. Iran is not going to invade Syria. And US has bought a lot of their Middle East allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan).

Iran and Hezbolla are the main sticking points, not Russia. And US track record with Libya and Iraq doesn't bode well for mutual trust either.

 

[barbos]

He didn't get the idea all of a sudden. He just got caught this time.

You really believe one can get away with it? in 21 century? with smarthpones?

The question of "why use chemical weapons now that he's winning" is like asking, why is he using tanks or guns? Because that's what weapons are for.

There is a difference though, international community ( that is US/EU) frowns a lot more on chemical weapons, so much so that using them is counter-productive. Maybe Assad forgot how he was so scared that he gave away his chemical weapons stockpiles the first time he was accused of using them.

I don't know about Iran, but you can buy Assad without making Russia sad. Russia has no problem with Israel and if US offered Assad a deal where he stops being nice to terrorists and he gets off the list plus some economic assistance he might as well take it. Iran is not going to invade Syria. And US has bought a lot of their Middle East allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan).

Iran and Hezbolla are the main sticking points, not Russia. And US track record with Libya and Iraq doesn't bode well for mutual trust either.

So the whole country is in ruins because of Hezbolla/Iran? That must do the wonders for the long term success of US in the Middle East.
But I agree West does not instill much trust if you are a dictator trying to reform.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Obama's strategy was to try, over and over and over again, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, to find a rebel group that wanted to institute a secular liberal democracy.

"Ah, we found one. Whoops, they're religious radicals. Ah, maybe this one. Nope, they're also religious radicals."

Yup, Obama really didn't get it about the jihadis.

Neither did his neocon advisors.

While factions received support, the Obama Admin didn't exactly insert itself fully into the Civil War. Obama saw what the real problem was with Syria... it would have been much worse than Iraq.

- - - Updated - - -

Much of the Syria situation is driven by two factors:

1) Russian desire for a permanent Mediterranean naval base. Assad gives them that, so they support Assad.
2) Iranian desire to keep a minority Shiite religious sect in charge of Syria. So they are allied with Assad and Russia.

The Saudis are interested in seeing a Sunni regime take power in Syria. The Kurds want territory from which to expand their drive for international recognition as a Kurdish nation. The Turks want to block the Kurds.

The US has no basic strategic interest there. It is caught in a battle that it is ill-equipped to play a role in and cannot possibly win by military means. Its only real interest is in its NATO ally, Turkey, which is now run by an unstable, unreliable dictator. So it is probably best that the US withdraw now. Whatever positive role that it could have played has long since been shredded, when its credibility as a Middle East peace broker was shredded by Trump's nutty Israeli policy.

The US role would be humanitarian, but there is almost no way to fulfill that role in Syria.

 

[funinspace]

Much of the Syria situation is driven by two factors:

1) Russian desire for a permanent Mediterranean naval base. Assad gives them that, so they support Assad.
2) Iranian desire to keep a minority Shiite religious sect in charge of Syria. So they are allied with Assad and Russia.

The Saudis are interested in seeing a Sunni regime take power in Syria. The Kurds want territory from which to expand their drive for international recognition as a Kurdish nation. The Turks want to block the Kurds.

The US has no basic strategic interest there. It is caught in a battle that it is ill-equipped to play a role in and cannot possibly win by military means. Its only real interest is in its NATO ally, Turkey, which is now run by an unstable, unreliable dictator. So it is probably best that the US withdraw now. Whatever positive role that it could have played has long since been shredded, when its credibility as a Middle East peace broker was shredded by Trump's nutty Israeli policy.

Israel is one of the main remaining reasons to stay in Syria. Israel wants Syria as a mess because Syria is the main supply route for Hezbollah. Also nobody will really bat an eye when Israel bombs bases in Syria as long as the war is going on. It would be harder if there is peace.

In addition to all of the above, there is also the various remnants of various Sunni crazies/terrorists, that grew in the aftermath of the Shrub invasion of Iraq; with the significant emergence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) back in 2003. Then at least some of these crazier groups then got support out of SA and their Sunni piglet states, as it was not just SA. Turkey also joined the fun of aided the crazies/terrorists. And then everyone was surprised that a Frankenstein arose. And at some unknown point Pres. Obama allowed our secret operations to join the fun of aided the crazies/terrorists. Oh yeah, and there were a few moderate guys (largely ex-Syrian military) that also fought against Assad that have been used by Sunni king-dictators, Turkey, and the US.

One of the most bizarre instances of US operations there, was that all our military-spying organizations somehow didn't notice the approximately 600 oil trucks traveling back and forth to Turkey from ISIS controlled territory. But Russia found them and destroyed them. Hum....

Not only is there nothing to win there, there isn't any way we can help militarily. Assad is really bad, but a country driven to total anarchy w/o any viable plan to rebuild, is beyond stupid. However, I don't think Assad would have ever been so 'evil' w/o a dozen countries having a hard on for destroying him and his government.

 

[Jayjay]

You really believe one can get away with it? in 21 century? with smarthpones?

Yes, repeatedly. Any reports are claimed to be "false flag" operations by the rebels, or orchestrated by foreign intelligence agencies even if there is footage.

There is a difference though, international community ( that is US/EU) frowns a lot more on chemical weapons, so much so that using them is counter-productive. Maybe Assad forgot how he was so scared that he gave away his chemical weapons stockpiles the first time he was accused of using them.

Chemical weapons have been used multiple times in Syria, without barely any repercussions. There is no reason for Assad to fear the international community's frowning any more than the previous times. Besides Assad isn't necessarily himself in charge of deciding tactical choices like when to use chemical weapons.

I don't know about Iran, but you can buy Assad without making Russia sad. Russia has no problem with Israel and if US offered Assad a deal where he stops being nice to terrorists and he gets off the list plus some economic assistance he might as well take it. Iran is not going to invade Syria. And US has bought a lot of their Middle East allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan).

Iran and Hezbolla are the main sticking points, not Russia. And US track record with Libya and Iraq doesn't bode well for mutual trust either.

So the whole country is in ruins because of Hezbolla/Iran? That must do the wonders for the long term success of US in the Middle East.
But I agree West does not instill much trust if you are a dictator trying to reform.

No, the civil war is due to Sunni-Shia conflicts that predates Assad. His dad had to deal with sunni extremists in his day as well. But my point is that paying off dictators isn't an on-off switch. After 2005, when Assad withdrew from Lebanon there may have been an opening to improve ties, and with Iraq becoming a clusterfuck and ISIS raising its head it wasn't realistic to just bribe Assad to make a 180 degree turn on a dime. I don't think anyone even seriously considered that option.