Assad Aiding ISIS, Now What?

Great Debates
1

There have been a few threads on the ISIS situation in the Middle East but most focusing on Iraq. I want to focus and discuss Syria.

The U.S now accuses Syrian President Bashar Al Assad of giving air cover to ISIS as they make their way to Aleppo. With ISIS taking that city, it will cut off the rebels’ lines of defense.

Now I am personally not surprised by this at all, many have contended that ISIS has targeted rebels’ far more than Assad and that government troops have bombed rebels territories while very rarely IS held areas.

Assad buys oil from IS. Plus IS plays well into Assad’s narrative that is either him or IS.

This is multi faceted situation and I am not going to post a really long OP.

The only ones I feel bad for in this situation are the Syrian people and the rebels, the hell with Assad, ISIS and America.

I contend that we should take the fight to ISIS and Assad, not only one. The U.S has been dishonest and double dealing, not truly destroying ISIS and giving Assad a free hand.

Obama’s policy in this regard has been a disaster.

Heck Al Qeada’s Nusra Front has been fighting ISIS more than the U.S or Assad!

I think Saudi Arabia and Turkey have the most sensible policy of all, that both the regime and ISIS should be destroyed. And the rebels need air cover.

Either give them air cover or don’t expect to fight for you. Obama seems to think the rebels will fight and die for him against ISIS without him moving against Assad.

The only stupid one is Obama, not the Arabs or Turks.

ISIS taking Aleppo is a blessing in disguise for the rebels, it leaves Obama’s policy of having a united front against ISIS in tatters. It could increase the chance of U.S acting against Assad and ISIS, which would benefit the rebels. I’m glad the rebels being trained by the U.S refuse to fight solely against ISIS.

I may pit Obama’s Syria policy soon. I think Obama plans on sealing a deal with Iran and hope Iran will negotiate an end to the Syrian war. Bad policy in my prediction.

2

It always seemed to me that Assad wanted to play his enemies against each other. Unless you’re contending that he never similarly attacked ISIS to bolster a “moderate” rebel group then I don’t see how this is shocking or new.

3

Fine, we do that and we destroy both. Then it ends up like Iraq in in 2003: Now we’ve got American/Western troops occupying a large Islamic country whose government has been destroyed, a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-ideological country with a lot of radical factions, some disposed to violence, and a lot of ethnic/religious hostility, and serious danger of pogroms and ethnic-cleansing campaigns in the absence of any government or occupying force effectual enough to stop them. How does this end well?

4

Anybody who thinks that the situation in Syria has a simple solution is deluding themselves.

It’s a 3-sided civil war within a 5-sided regional war.

Edit: Actually, there is ONE simple solution, but I doubt that anybody would find it acceptable–blanket Syria with neutron bombs, and start from scratch.

5

No occupation, just airstrikes similar to Kosovo in 1999. Degrade Assad and let the rebels defeat him, when he is gone have Syrian troops, Rebels and Kurds fight ISIS. Assad is out of the way.

I am not advocating an Iraq style invasion.

6

If no other country in the world cares about this, why should we? Why is this our problem? ISIS is no threat to the US. It’s a regional problem that needs to be taken care of by the regional players.

You have to step back and ask yourself why the US needs to solve all the problems in the world. And then you need to ask if we actually CAN solve the problem you are talking about. How, exactly, do we "take the fight to ISIS and ASAD’? How do we “win” and what happens after we “win”?

7

There is no such thing as “the rebels”. There are untold number of rebel groups, and more sectarian/ethnic devisions than there are in Iraq.

Kosovo was a break-away province with a large majority of ethnic Albanians. We did not overthrow the central authority in Belgrade. The two situations are not even close to be analogous.

8

Lol. I dream that you were just trying to be funny here.

9

I say we declare Iraq a failed state. Divvy up the place.
Let Assad have the North merge with Syria, minus the Kurds, and Iran can have the south.
Let them deal with all these terrorists and stabilise the area, so the people can live in peace again. Plus, instead of spending all this money on bombing and destruction, give them a shitload of money to rebuild the place. Marshall help style.

Probably not a very popular opinion…

10

Which specific rebel group do you have in mind, and what makes you think it would do a better job at governing the country than Assad or ISIS?

11

Who’s the “we” here, and with what right and by what means would this “we” convince the countries involved - Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. - to so radically reshuffle their borders?

12

I think he must be referring to the British Empire. Those are the guys who’re into drawing up borders for others.

13

With what right was Iraq invaded in the first place?
With what right was Syria turned into a hell hole, just because Assad dared to make a trade agreement with Iran?
With what right was the democratically elected government of the Ukraine overtrown, in another one of those ‘popular uprisings’?

14

Sorry, I don’t see how this answers any of my questions.

As a reminder, my questions were:

15

Now I can finally see the good intentions underlying the Flood.

16

I don’t know about solving all the problems in the world, but the internationally criticized US invasion of Iraq is directly responsible for the country’s instability that led to the rise of ISIS.

17

What is happening in Syria is the direct result of The Arab Spring. ISIS may be a part of the issue, but they just represent one branch of Sunni opposition to Minority Allowite rule by Assad.

The problem in Iraq is political, not military. We can’t fix the political problem.

18

I know you’re not actually advocating this, but it’s not a “solution” even if it is politically acceptable, anymore than killing your child is a “solution” to chickenpox.

19

Why do we need to give oil-producers like Iraq and Iran money for rebuilding?

Regards,
Shodan

20

The fundamental issue in Iraq and Syria is simply that there are many competing forces and none is powerful enough to “win”, so we are looking at a long, long war. How long is hard to predict. Conflicts like this have, historically, gone on for decades in some instances.

In Iraq for example the Shia government is powerful enough that it’s not really at risk from ISIS in Shia areas. But it’s so sectarian that its soldiers literally will not fight when they are defending Sunni areas, as we see time and time again when they flee at the first sign of resistance from ISIS in a Sunni area.

The Kurds are not by themselves powerful enough to fend off ISIS due to being limited in the types of munitions the government in Baghdad will allow the Peshmerga to have, but the U.S. has essentially backstopped the Kurds with heavy air campaigns anytime their territory has been threatened by ISIS.

In Syria Assad is clearly in survival mode, he’s content to just try to hold on to what he has in the hopes that some day the various factions get weak enough that he can try to reassert his control. He’s probably hoping for an ultimate bail out from Russia or Iran if I had to guess.

I agree with the general sentiment there are few “moves” we have. I think stuff like helping the Kurds stop ISIS moving into Kurdish territory in Iraq and helping them defend Kobane, through extensive aerial campaigns, is a good thing. But we don’t have any moves that are going to really help the larger regional war going on.