[karajorma]

The West has been meddling for years now. Do you really think it's helped?

[jr2]

I think that withdrawal was a mistake. The method of what we did over there may have been flawed, but once committed, we should have stayed.

Any of the folks over there that put their necks on the line to help us (and by extension, their country) are dead, dying or hiding.
 Same as Vietnam. Maybe we shouldn't have been over there, or maybe we should have done it differently. But by interfering and then leaving, we doomed our allies in-country to death.

If we had never gone, they may have not risked life and limb for a futile (without assistance while the opposing side has funding  and equipment from USSR (Vietnam) /  terrorist finances (Middle East).

You don't go to war and quit. That's a good way to lose the advantage and cost more blood on both sides. Imagine if we quit and tried to contain Germany or Japan in WWII.   Yeah not the same situation but still.

This (radical, militarized Islam in this case, but anything causing no holds barred terrorism will fit the bill) is a threat that cannot be ignored, because it will not ignore you.


Personally, I think we should have offered aid to the Kurds and any other peaceful folks. Create a cordon of fire around them.

But now what to do with terrorism sponsors? You can't level their entire country that's barbaric. You can't just decapitate the leadership and hope for the best result that's inhumane if a despot comes to power and slaughters everyone who dares oppose him. Nation building makes it easy for radicals to paint you as foreign invaders.

Maybe we are too soft - handed. Maybe we should take a more Ronan approach.

But give them a chance to win back their independence if there is no major trouble from their sector.

That was a wild idea.

But anyways, doing nothing will not help. What gives you the idea that these people will stop if left alone? That kind of appeasement has been tried before. It never works.

Surgical strikes and Spec ops only work if your Intel is up to snuff.

If it was, we would not be in this mess, durr.   because if we knew ISIL was brewing, I'm sure we would have stayed.

[Aesaar]

Thinking we had a moral obligation to the people of Iraq and Syria is what started this mess in the first place.

[666maslo666]

Maybe we should not have been involved in the first place but with the likes of ISIS rising in the power vacuum there is no option but to be involved now.

[karajorma]

Maybe, but there is a difference between being invited to help in a military campaign and then leaving and staying to be part of a nation building exercise.

Given that no one had a clue what the **** to do in Iraq after the fall of Saddam, it would be pretty stupid to do that again.

I think that withdrawal was a mistake. The method of what we did over there may have been flawed, but once committed, we should have stayed.

I wasn't only talking about Iraq.

[Aesaar]

How about we learn from Iraq now and stop supporting the Syrian rebellion which let IS really get going in the first place?

Better the devil you know and all that.  Assad is a much better option than IS, and the Syrians could do legwork in Iraq too.

[Luis Dias]

Yes, that's the Kissinger argument. I respectfully disagree with it. I think it way more respectful to take the risk and try to be on the right side of history, rather than supporting dictators like the US has done in the Kissinger years and so on.

All this blaming the US is quite astonishing to me in regards to the Syrian situation, since it should be obviously clear to anyone here that the one who ****ed up by meddling here was Putin, not Obama. Had Putin left Assad alone, the secular opposition would have had defeated the government years ago, and something more on the lines of Lybia or Egypt would have happened. That is, not a perfect situation at all, but at least 150 thousand deaths less abhorrent.

You know, can you please leave your US hatred on the door and try to think rationally on this one? I mean, I'm not a fan of the US but come on.

[Hades]

um excuse me Aesaar is probably the biggest fan of America I know, and he's not even American

[karajorma]

I don't think anyone is only blaming the West for the mess in the Middle East. The Russians (and Soviets before them) have to bear quite a bit of the blame too.

[Luis Dias]

I'm sorry I thought I read somewhere that ISIS was a byproduct of american support of Syrian rebellion. Did I read that wrong? Let me see.

Nope. Didn't read that wrong. So there. If anyone wants to blame anyone regarding the ****stain that is Syria / Iraq right now, the ones to be pointed out should be the Russians and the Saudis, just as we blamed (correctly) the UK and the US for the ****ing messopotamia that was created since 2003. The only big influence the US has made in that area recently was to curtail the usage of chemical weapons in the region, which I would guess was a positive thing, but hey it's america so you never know.

[Aesaar]

Luis Dias: I said IS is a product of the Syrian rebellion.  Which it is.  It also happens to be a rebellion the US is supporting.  The American support isn't responsible for IS except in how it let the rebellion last long enough for IS to form.  The Russians are equally responsible, but there isn't really a way to stop Russian support and Russia doesn't really care about IS in the first place.

I'm not anti-American at all, but it's kinda hard to deny that the cluster**** that is Iraq is overwhelmingly due to the US deposing Saddam Hussein, completely dismantling the Ba'athist Iraqi state, and then being unable to build a new government capable of maintaining stability in the face of extremist groups.  Hussein's Iraq didn't have this problem.

Syria's situation definitely can't be blamed just on the US, and yeah, if Russia hadn't been so willing to prop up Assad, the opposition would have probably won a while ago.  But they did, and we need to look at the situation now, not the way it was in 2012.  The secular rebels are losing.  Simply put, they're not going to win unless they get massive air support from NATO, which they won't get, or they get even more weapons, which could easily end up in IS hands.  If it comes down to a choice between Assad and IS (and I think it will), I'd rather have Assad.  Moreover, purely by virtue of having forces committed on the ground, the Syrian army is in a better position to combat IS than any NATO state except potentially Turkey.  I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to stop making that job harder than it needs to be.

I won't deny that it's quite Kissinger-ish, but tbh, I've rarely seen morality and international relations mix very well.  It always seems to cause more problems than it solves.  If you're accusing me of being a proponent of Realpolitik, you're not wrong at all.

[Luis Dias]

Right, I understand. I read you saying that the IS was a product of the Syrian rebellion which was a product of the US' backing it up.

Well, Assad is better than IS. Thing is, IS is something that should definitely not be feared. It's something that will peak and then downfall rather swiftly and spectacularly. It needs only containing and isolation, their suicidal urges will not take too much time into shredding it to nothingness.

Assad will largely outlive any remnants of "ISIS", and then we will have to deal with someone who is obviously at par with Saddam, but now backed up by a regime like Russia. How's that for a realpolitik assessment of the situation?

Then there's the largely ignored (but understood) aspect of this war becoming a huge drag on the local economy for generations to come due to undoubtedly massive sums of wealth wasted on weapons. Wealth that is most probably being lent by banksters (in the Kremlin? London? Russian londoners? I have no info here) who will reap the profits for those same decades to come. War is a finantial necessity.

[Aesaar]

What's the long-term plan?  Given the current state of the secular Syrian rebels, can we really expect them to be able to keep order in Syria if the US helps them win (assuming that's still possible)?  You're right in saying IS probably won't last long, but IS is nothing special.  It's just another extremist organization like the Taliban.  If it wasn't them, it'd be someone else because they're a result of long-lasting instability.

So what's most conducive to stability in the region?  I didn't like Hussein and I don't like Assad, but what's the alternative?  The US has been down this road before.

[Luis Dias]

The alternative? Well that's up for the Syrians to resolve. The last thing the US should do is to design the "alternative". The best thing they should do is to have a firm opinion on the choices they have, and that such opinion be somewhat realistic, but preferably, moralistic.

The best alternative I come up with is having Assad step down and promote fair elections in the country. He lied about going for this route enough times that the civil war started, so that's not possible. Russia is not interested in any of this as well. The syrian taliban are definitely not interested in secular states. So what should you do? Support the secularists all the way. To let them be thrown under the bus so that Assad can run down his tanks against ISIS is the wrong idea. Soft Power is also about giving a message to the world on what kind of politics and ideas you are willing to support and what you are willing to throw under the bus.

And I'm willing to say that if the US fails to support Assad or any other ruthless dictator like him well at least the americans will be able to live without the same shame they have of having had supported beautiful people like Pinochet, Saddam or Suharto. The conservative mindset of dealing with the devil for the sake of saving current lives has dragged the late 20th century to the moral mud that we inherit. Let's not do this mistake again. For all the horrible mismanagements, miscalculations, lies and tragedies that befell the Iraq war, at least the US did what it should have done in 91: depose the monster they themselves created, try to create a democratic political landscape (yeah I know, but at least they tried and they are not really in a worse state they were in under Saddam anyway).

[Aesaar]

Yes, the US tried to create a democratic political landscape in Iraq.  And you know what?  I actually have no moral objections whatsoever to the 2003 invasion.  My objection to it, and to ongoing American support in Syria, is that I don't think it is/was in either America's interests or those of the local people.  I was behind NATO intervention in Libya, and was even behind similar support in Syria.  Until the government really started to win.  Basically, until I no longer thought the secular Syrian opposition was capable of taking over the country and holding onto it.  Now, I think all it's doing in prolonging a war that was decided a while ago.  The US doesn't need to start supporting Assad, but actively working to keep that civil war going is no longer helping anyone except IS.  I don't think the West's moral outrage at Assad is worth it.

As much as I'd like Assad to step down, he won't.  Why would he?  He didn't in 2012, he certainly won't now that he's mostly beaten the only opposition the West finds acceptable.  NATO can't intervene in Syria the way it intervened in Libya for one simple reason: Syria possesses modern air defenses (sold to them by Russia, of course).  Libya did not.  Gaddafi could do nothing but stare impotently at at the NATO planes dropping bombs on his troops.  Assad can shoot those same planes down.  There's no way for NATO to overtly intervene in Syria without fighting an actual war.  There's no way for NATO to provide more weapons to the secular opposition without risking those weapons falling into IS hands.  There's no way the secular opposition will win without massive US/NATO support.  And at this point I don't think there's a way the secular opposition can successfully hold onto the country and prevent it from going the same way Iraq has gone.

Assad stepping down and having a transition to a secular democratic government is the preferable outcome, I agree, but I don't see a way to get there from where we are now.  Especially if we want that new government to be effective.

[Luis Dias]

I don't think Assad should get the greenlight from the US to roll over what he wants. That's also a message to every dictator in the world that just so as long as they keep at bombing their own civilians they'll eventually get the world to say "ah ok, you won, we are tired of this mess, go ahead with your oppression". To deny this narrative to the end is a message in itself that is quite positive. Dictators worldwide are looking. And they are not liking the message they are getting "****, this could prolong for years and year and it's not even clear that guy will get anything in the end"

I say that's a good thing. If you think that "handing over" the country to Assad right now is something that would be preferable, well I think you are also overlooking what is to come, or at least thinking in your head that what would come about is just a return to the old status quo. Except of course, it won't, because just like his father did in the old days, the moment a truce is established and the rebellion defeated, there will be a massive bloodshed (genocide?) of every single person who has had ties with the rebels. This is why, incidentally, the rebels are still fighting: they have nothing to lose. They know it's an all out war against their own and their friends and families' lives.

[Aesaar]

I think the lack of overt intervention in Syria already sends a very clear message: "We won't actually attack you if you're able to hurt us back."  I really doubt the current US handling of Syria is putting the fear of the USA into any dictator who actually cares.  It's not particularly intimidating when you contrast it to Iraq or Libya.  Rather, it makes it look like the Americans aren't willing to get their hands dirty anymore.  The Ukraine situation kinda shows that too, but that's a whole other can of worms.

It isn't how I see the US actions there, but I suspect a lot of people who actually are anti-American do see it that way.

If the US is sending a message, I don't think it's for other dictators, I think it's for allies and especially Americans.  They want to do something, they want to be seen doing something, because they can't do nothing.  They want to be able to say "we tried to do something about this."  I don't think it has a practical purpose anymore.  It's become a moral exercise.

I don't think it'll go back to the status quo at all.  This civil war has seriously questioned the legitimacy of his rule and it isn't something dictatorships like that survive unscathed even if they win.  And let's remember that I don't really want Assad to stay, I just don't see a way to get the preferred solution of "him gone but Syria not turned into Iraq v2".  And Iraq v2 is aiming pretty high if there isn't a stabilizing agent like what the US did for Iraq after the invasion.  What you and I want doesn't necessarily coincide with what's possible.  If we constrain ourselves to what's definitely possible, I think Assad's victory is the preferable outcome, as much as I don't like it.

As an aside, I'll add that violent revolutions tend to go through a rather bloody period after they achieve victory.  Pretty sure we'd have gotten some purges even if Assad had lost last year or something.

Anyway, time for sleep

[Luis Dias]

Well but if Assad is not going to survive for much longer, how would that happen without further bloodshed and civil war?

You might think this will not continue forever, but let me tell you, this can well continue for decades now. Angola had a civil war for 30 years. And I see no political solution whatsoever in Syria that is not a complete surrender from one side. And I don't think that either Saudi Arabia, the US or Russia are willing to back off anytime soon, let's not even dwell on the fact that some much more Hawkish US president might be in line already in 2016.

Regarding ISIS, either they are able to moderate themselves to a state between Talibanese and Iranese, or they are finished. Regardless all of that is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia going a bit out of control, and furthering establishing Islam as an ideology to be feared by westerners (I'm talking about appearances and perceptions here, not "Truth" or whatever).

[666maslo666]

and they are not really in a worse state they were in under Saddam anyway).

Thats debatable, at best. I think islamic dictatorship sprinkled with daily sectarian violence and suicide bombing is worse than a stable secular dictatorship. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dead during this transformation.

US interventions should have stopped in Afghanistan (you cant really do much worse than Taliban, so there was nothing to lose there, they can only go up). Iraq was a mistake.

[Luis Dias]

Perhaps. Although bear in mind that Iraq was merely in a state of frozen stagnation (in sheer poverty, with the exception of the Saddam family) and that sooner or later, the revolution would come about. And in that moment, the whole islamic sunni shia nightmare would unfold anyway.

Look at Syria, the US didn't need to place one single F16 there and look at it.