Invading Syria (Iraq 2). Yay or nay?

[DrZoidberg]

Do you think we should do a repeat of the Iraq war and enter Syria with western coalition troops? Why why not?

I vote yes, because... can't get any worse and it doesn't look like it's going to get solved any time soon if we just let it be.

Am I wrong/stupid/deluded/crazy/genius?

 

[bilby]

As long as we don't bring the Americans, we probably can't fuck it up any worse than it is already.

Assad and CystISIS both need to go; but something needs to be put in their place - and it makes no sense to go in until we have a pretty good idea of what that will be. It needs to be more than just a vague idea that democracy will prevail; only the Seppos would be stupid enough to believe that that can happen all on its own.

CystISIS have at least carved out an actual territory under their control, which gives direct military intervention at least some hope of being effective. Marching in and chucking them out might be a good start; but what will fill the power vacuum that creates? And how much are we prepared to invest in creating something to fill that gap that has a real chance of being dramatically better than what it replaces?

Assad may be a bastard; but if he was replaced by a dictatorial government of non-Syrians, why would the Syrian people prefer our bastards over the bastard we ousted?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This would be a pretty bad strategy in Civ. You have to let the countries calm down before starting another war. Give them some entertainment.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Attack and reinstate Assad 114.29%
Only continue with current policy, ie bombing raids

In my haste I accidentally voted for continuing with the current policy. I would say both in that the bombing is targeted to ISIS.
The best solution is to ally with Assad against ISIS while entering into peace talk with those who do not support ISIS, Al Qaeda or fanatics of their ilk. This would be conditional that he will stand down for a new leader to take place. I don't see a problem with him being a candidate if people want to vote for him freely.

The best solution was for the West not to have gotten involved in the first place.

 

[barbos]

Bomb 10 times more and let Assad win and stay in power

 

[iolo]

If there is a war, you support one side of the other, or else you keep out. If you don't like ISIS, the obvious answer is to give up backing small terrorist groups and support the legal government with all the help you can give it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I would say give it back to the Ottomans, but that'd be like a neighbor borrowing a new lawnmower and returning it 10 years later rusted and with a cracked block.

 

[SLD]

While I would love to see both Assad and ISIS go, that option, given Russian involvement is not possible. The Paris attacks gives us a Casus belli to go in with ground troops and clean out ISIS. Both the UN and NATO will support such a move. Bush's mistake was not so much to go into Iraq as it was to go into Iraq without the support of our allies and the United Nations. There was no Casus Belli, and the Sunnis in Iraq knew there was no real support for the war.

Prior to last Friday, we made sure ISIS was contained inside the Sunni heartland. We protected the government of Iraq and prevented its imminent collapse, but beyond that we viewed this problem was their fight. And the strategy was working, albeit very slowly. Kurdish rebels managed to cut off Mosul earlier this month.

Now we have the impetus we need to go in and remake the area, perhaps even establishing a lasting peace. But to really do that we have to understand the the Sunnis will not consent to be governed by Shiites. We need to establish a new state where Sunnis can rule themselves and Shiites can rule themselves. That's hard for us westerners to follow, but we have to recognize reality.

SLD

 

[ImGod]

Assad isn't leaving. Not with Russia behind him. So stop sending guns and bullets to the area, let Russia support Assad, and they'll take care of ISIS. Instead of supporting "moderates" with guns and bombs and bullets, offer them a way out of the country if they want it. Drain the country of everyone smart enough to leave it.

Wait 60 years for Assad's family to die out and see what happens. More like a Cuba strategy than an Iraq/Libya strategy.

 

[ImGod]

While I would love to see both Assad and ISIS go, that option, given Russian involvement is not possible. The Paris attacks gives us a Casus belli to go in with ground troops and clean out ISIS. Both the UN and NATO will support such a move. Bush's mistake was not so much to go into Iraq as it was to go into Iraq without the support of our allies and the United Nations. There was no Casus Belli, and the Sunnis in Iraq knew there was no real support for the war.

Prior to last Friday, we made sure ISIS was contained inside the Sunni heartland. We protected the government of Iraq and prevented its imminent collapse, but beyond that we viewed this problem was their fight. And the strategy was working, albeit very slowly. Kurdish rebels managed to cut off Mosul earlier this month.

Now we have the impetus we need to go in and remake the area, perhaps even establishing a lasting peace. But to really do that we have to understand the the Sunnis will not consent to be governed by Shiites. We need to establish a new state where Sunnis can rule themselves and Shiites can rule themselves. That's hard for us westerners to follow, but we have to recognize reality.

SLD

Redrawing the map around the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd divides might help. But I don't see Turkey, Saudia Arabia, and Iran being thrilled unless they get to help draw the lines. Turkey and the Kurds might be the biggest stumbling block.

 

[funinspace]

Here could be a remapping of the area that might make sense:
From: https://www.quora.com/What-will-happen-to-Syria-and-Iraq-once-ISIS-has-been-defeated


However, there are a few problems, like water rights for Shiitestan, as the major rivers would come thru Sunnistan. That might be able to be hammered out via a UN sponsored agreement, but then w/o stable governments, who could claim that it would hold. And the Sunni's would probably be pissy that they have very little of all that oil. I would think the Kurds would like their new official country, and would have enough oil to help. However, the Turks might get rather pissy about it as they would have a much harder time doing what they want to Kurdish "terrorists". And of course the Shiite powers that be in the rump still running the official state of Iraq would most likely not like having their official state ripped apart. And the slashed Alawite state players probably wouldn't be very happen with the idea. And what would be in it for the Russians, Iran, or SA as all of them seem to be playing for a total win? And the west seems to have a real tough time with the idea of redrawing map lines...

 

[untermensche]

The only effort I would support would be a united UN effort.

I don't see the Russians and Americans agreeing on much however.

 

[bleubird]

https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/446925385495069/?pnref=story
It's complicated.

 

[Terrell]

Tough call between "let them sort it out" and "it's a fucking mess, no matter what". Both apply in my opinion. We shouldn't put troops there. If Assad goes, how do we know that his replacement won't be worse?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Unless we commit ourselves to an expensive, large, sustained occupying force, with fast, mobile units to counter flare ups, we're not going to see a whole lot of improvement. The Muslims in opposition in the area have this ability but don't want to fight and would much rather we handle it and take the heat for it. I say estimate the cost on this for a decade or so, then take just half that money and fund an alternative energy manhattan project. Get off oil and tell that part of the world to kiss your ass on the way out.

There. I solved the Middle East crisis and global warming in one shot. You're welcome.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I've read that the Russians are supporting the regime, not necessarily Assad.

The Syrian regime is Baathist, socialist and secular, tho the govt is dominated by Alawite Shias.

I think they have a point with the whole secular govt thing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Tough call between "let them sort it out" and "it's a fucking mess, no matter what". Both apply in my opinion. We shouldn't put troops there. If Assad goes, how do we know that his replacement won't be worse?

We know that already. Look who involved in the war against the government.

 

[SLD]

While I would love to see both Assad and ISIS go, that option, given Russian involvement is not possible. The Paris attacks gives us a Casus belli to go in with ground troops and clean out ISIS. Both the UN and NATO will support such a move. Bush's mistake was not so much to go into Iraq as it was to go into Iraq without the support of our allies and the United Nations. There was no Casus Belli, and the Sunnis in Iraq knew there was no real support for the war.

Prior to last Friday, we made sure ISIS was contained inside the Sunni heartland. We protected the government of Iraq and prevented its imminent collapse, but beyond that we viewed this problem was their fight. And the strategy was working, albeit very slowly. Kurdish rebels managed to cut off Mosul earlier this month.

Now we have the impetus we need to go in and remake the area, perhaps even establishing a lasting peace. But to really do that we have to understand the the Sunnis will not consent to be governed by Shiites. We need to establish a new state where Sunnis can rule themselves and Shiites can rule themselves. That's hard for us westerners to follow, but we have to recognize reality.

SLD

Redrawing the map around the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd divides might help. But I don't see Turkey, Saudia Arabia, and Iran being thrilled unless they get to help draw the lines. Turkey and the Kurds might be the biggest stumbling block.

Yup. Kurds are an issue. I'd favor a creation of a Kurdistan, but Turkey might not be too keen on the idea. Perhaps one way to sell it to them is that they could offer incentives for their Kurdish minority to emigrate. Erdogan would probably like that. But obviously there is no simple issue and each solution has problems that are created. There is not going to be a solution that satisfies everyone, and it is not likely that violence is going to be completely eliminated in the region.

SLD

 

[whichphilosophy]

Tough call between "let them sort it out" and "it's a fucking mess, no matter what". Both apply in my opinion. We shouldn't put troops there. If Assad goes, how do we know that his replacement won't be worse?

While news is scarce I believe the Syrian army is still continuing to advance wherein one article from the WALL STREET JOURNAL is referenced.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/syrian-forces-advance-on-aleppo-rebels-fear-another-siege-1407860811

y MARIA ABI-HABIB
Updated Aug. 13, 2014 9:55 a.m. ET
84 COMMENTS
REYHANLI, Turkey—Syrian government forces have nearly encircled Aleppo, preparing a siege to wrest control of the city from rebels in what would be the biggest blow yet to the three-year uprising.

The fall of Aleppo, Syria's largest city and economic hub before the fighting, could also bolster the ranks of Islamic State militants who continue to make gains across the country, as defeated members of the Western-backed Free Syrian Army switch to their side.

Rebel commanders in Aleppo say they are stockpiling goods as aid groups step up food deliveries—crates of lentils, rice, ketchup and baby formula—seeking to prevent the same kind of mass starvation that forced them to surrender the much smaller city of Homs in May.

osing Homs, once dubbed the capital of the revolution, was a tremendous blow to the rebels. If they lose the battle for Aleppo as well, it could spell the end of their revolt against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, rebel commanders warn.

Regime forces now surround Aleppo on three sides, having overrun the Sheikh Najjar Industrial City in the east last month, and are trying to seal off the last rebel-controlled corridor, a 4-mile-wide access point to the northeast.

Tuesday, rebels and regime forces clashed in Aziza, on the southern outskirts of Aleppo, while government aircraft stepped up strikes on the old city, activists said.

Simultaneously, extremists with the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, are encroaching on rebel-held territory north of the city, uprooting the FSA from the countryside.

"We're about to lose Aleppo and no one cares," said Hussam Almarie, an FSA spokesman. "We won't be able to recover the revolution if this happens. And we'll lose the moderates in Syria."

I would suggest that to avoid a prolonged siege and battle, the Syrian Army offers a deal where rebels can serve with the Syrian army to join forces against the fanatical elements.
Mao used such a strategy during the civil war.

 

[SLD]

Here could be a remapping of the area that might make sense:
From: https://www.quora.com/What-will-happen-to-Syria-and-Iraq-once-ISIS-has-been-defeated
View attachment 4762

However, there are a few problems, like water rights for Shiitestan, as the major rivers would come thru Sunnistan. That might be able to be hammered out via a UN sponsored agreement, but then w/o stable governments, who could claim that it would hold. And the Sunni's would probably be pissy that they have very little of all that oil. I would think the Kurds would like their new official country, and would have enough oil to help. However, the Turks might get rather pissy about it as they would have a much harder time doing what they want to Kurdish "terrorists". And of course the Shiite powers that be in the rump still running the official state of Iraq would most likely not like having their official state ripped apart. And the slashed Alawite state players probably wouldn't be very happen with the idea. And what would be in it for the Russians, Iran, or SA as all of them seem to be playing for a total win? And the west seems to have a real tough time with the idea of redrawing map lines...

Maybe the water rights and oil issues trade each other off? Shiitestan gives oil to Sunnistan and Sunnistan gives water to Shiitestan. Not sure. But you are right about Russia, and Iran playing to win it all. So is ISIS though. I think we just have to shove it down their throats in the end. They have to be willing to accept a trade off. Assad can remain in power in Alawite state. Again, there are no simple and easy solutions. There is only a few basic realities, and we have to recognize that basicaly this is a sunni-shia conflict that is spilling over, and it's time to put a stop to it. We just need the wherewithal to do so. The Paris attacks should give that to us, if not at least France (our Ally!). While I'm a big supporter of Obama, I do disagree with him on this one.

I like the map. The other map in that article (which I can't seem to upload) really shows how difficult any solution is.

SLD