This is the sole point on which I’m pushing back. I don’t think the adjective “direct” is doing much work here. Was Korea a direct threat? Afghanistan? Mussolini’s Italy?
My sole point is that some of the outcomes here are very bad for US national security interests (Iranian control of Syria), and some are quite good (Free Syrian Army control of Syria). Indeed, some subparts of those outcomes are better than others (Al Qaeda or Hezbollah control with or without chemical weapons, say).
So I don’t think you can really say we shouldn’t get involved because it doesn’t concern our national security. I think the argument for noninvolvement has to be that there’s nothing we can do about it, or that any action harms our security more than inaction, or that some value is more important than the harm to our security that may come.
I’m sorry I can’t go into the detail I’d like to right now to support my point-of-view, but the rebels are composed of many factions. The al-Qaeda / hardcore fundamentalist Muslim jihadist factions are divisible from other rebel factions. This is evident from the behavior of rebel factions themselves.
For example, a more FSA-aligned group is currently fighting against ISIS in Northern Syria, and the Kurdish militants, the PYK, have fought al-Nusra. Now I hesitate to say whether the PYK has actually joined the SNC / FSA, but some news has indicated they are flirting with it. Regardless, ISIS and al-Nusra have come into conflict with rebels when their agendas clash. If the fighters themselves see a difference then a difference must exist and we can verifiably support the goals of those rebel factions that do not directly support al-Qaeda.
On the negative side, our aid to the rebels will indirectly strengthen al-Qaeda in Syria. It can’t help but do so, but I think their behavior and the fact they are clearly at odds with the vast majority of rebels when considering goals beyond merely the removal of Assad will make it easy for these rebels to turn on al-Qaeda and support our aims at removing them.
Our involvement in Syria to date has produced a certain result that it would be tough to argue agsinst that when destruction of CW is completed in November 2014 it will definitely reduce a threat to people in the region, our allies, and for our own security interests worldwide.
However complicated the situation in Syria is, it will be less complicated when all the deadly chemicals have been removed.
Achieving a first step took US involvment and hopefully means a certain red line will not be crossed ever again as all nations stay involved to find a way to resolve it.
It is not accurate to say that al Qaida is the rebel side.
Just as there were multiple groups among the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, (before the Reagan administration decided to support a limited number of them, effectively arming only the future Taliban), there are multiple resistance groups in Syria, a number of whom are also in open opposition to al Qaida.
It is true that in the last two months, groups with ties to al Qaida have made long strides, politically, to bring “neutral” parties into their camp and it may be true by next summer that the opposition will be overwhelmingly al Qaida allies. However, that was not how it began and it has been Iranian/Hezbollah/Hamas support that has brought about that change. al Qaida was actually a late-comer to the Syrian civil war before Iran and its allies saw an opportunity to increase their power in the region.
I do not know whether that course could be changed, but providing those who oppose al Qaida and Iran more support could, possibly, reduce or eliminate al Qaida’s influence.
Magiver could understand what you are saying domesticus but he would first have to recognize the significance of the first step that is forcing Assad to dismantle his CW arsenal.
There are many here who argue that a thousand tons of CW is insignificant in the midst of the civil war in Syria, and there are those who doubt that an artillery shell loaded with Sarin has a much larger zone of lethality than an equally sized conventional shell.
US policy is to promote a transitional government. One big problem in getting that moving and there are many huge problems in the way, is that the Assad regime has all the records and knows the whereabouts of the CW arsenal. Until Assad was pushed into giving that information up, there has been hat CW danger hanging over what outsiders can do.
Al Qaeda foreign fighters are most difficult to deal with when they find pockets within dense population where they can find safe haven in the midst of indigenous people who might have some sympathy with the violent cause.
I don’t know if Magiver thinks we should turn a blind eye to Assad emptying his sarin arsenal on those populations where al Qaeda might find safe haven. But that is a no go for a multitude of reasons.
Let’'s destroy Assad’s god-forsaken weapons from hell and get on with resolving this with as much knowledge and reason and with as much support for the right minded good Syrians as we can give. And let’s have Russia and Iran involved in getting there. Some form of transitional government will be a part of it.
al Qaeda will not be part of it … and that we can be sure… Russia, Iran, and the West have common ground on that.
Nope. Must have missed too much sleep last night.
Iran has been funding the non-Syrian forces who have been attacking the rebels. al Qaida has been funded by others.
The relevant point, however, was that the anti-government fighters in Syria for most of the rebellion have included a lot of people who also oppose al Qaida, although al Qaida has scored a number of political supporters among the other rebels in the last couple of months.
I am struck by the resemblances here with the Viet Nam War, before it became ours. It wasn’t inspired or led by Communists so much as Buddhists protesting a Catholic elite running the country. Unless, of course, those monks burned themselves to death in solidarity with the international proletariat.
But as things got increasingly dire and dangerous, the Communists gravitated to the center of power in the National Liberation Front. After all, they had access to weapons and the training and Lord knows they knew all about the organization of a revolutionary cadre. For a while, the Communists paid some lip service to an inclusive united front with Buddhists and others, but pretty quickly the NLF was essentially the Viet Cong.
From my reading, and granting the difficulty in examining from waaaay over here, a similar situation exists. The anti-government front was clearly opposed to the Alawite domination of Syrian power and politics, but were wary of making it a sectarian conflict, for reasons of sanity. And even as the Alawites are widely understood to be a sector within the general Shia population, Shias do not feel an inherent obligation to protect Alawite power. Like Baptists may prefer Anglicans to Catholics, its not by much.
But the ground appears to be shifting, the conflict is becoming increasingly sectarian, with Sunni dominated governments shipping arms to the rebels, while Shia Iran assists the government. The moderate and secular people who began the rebellion have lost control of it, if they ever really had it to begin with.
If I could choose one oxymoron to disappear from our language, and any other, it would be “holy war”.
Here, let me help you out. Turns out that Skyler White is a post-op tranny who was previously a Navy Seal with mad commando skills. The lizard eyed Negro is really named Achmed Rachmann 'Inoff, and the whole meth thing is a front in his plot for revenge on Skyler and…Hey! Quit shoving! No hitting! Totally uncool! Stop it…
So in defense of the US Administration’s Syria Drive, the first paragraph in the report cited above is this:
“”“The passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2118 Friday, Sept. 27 was a breakthrough in US-Russia relations and arms control, marking a shift to a new, truly international diplomatic phase toward conflict resolution in Syria”“”
We know al Qaeda won’t stop killing and terrorizing easy targets. I believe two things… Al Qaeda has no big backer in this conflict and I see the Assad regime, the Russians, Iran, and the EU and the US and the US backed rebels need to insure the CW dismantling and destruction goes on, and they need to organize in some functional way to resist the influx of al Qaeda fighters into the conflict.
But one aspect of all this should be the recognition that had Obama whimpered away from the CW attack as isolationist politicians like Senator Rand Paul and much of the US public would have him do, none of this 'new, truly international diplomatic phase toward conflict resolution in Syria actually begins to evolve.
The big picture now involves Iran, Russia and the US working toward a transition government, that the anti-Assad rebels that we are expected to trust are going to have to start recognizing certain realities.
I have more faith in them doing it than Tea Party Republicans coming to grips with reality if you want to know the truth.
Yes I get that Al-Qaeda is one of multiple factions. I also get that they are crazy loons looking for good a time in Heaven and will slaughter the other opposition members if they come to power.
So I don’t really don’t see the upside in taking Assad down unless there are enough people willing to take on Al-Qaeda and if they come to power first they will likely look just like Assad.
Funny how nobody seems to mention Syria at all now-hope it disappears from the world stage.
The gas attack isn’t mentioned-guess nobody wants to be involved.
I agree that if ISIS or al-Nusra takes over the country then they’ll be no better than Assad. There are a number of reason why these jihadist groups will not be able to maintain their current strength in the post-Assad environment:
Their numbers are artificially high due to their current fighting effectiveness.
They are still a minority despite their current popularity.
They are already at odds with many of the rebel factions. They are at odds with the Kurds whose region they inhabit. Spokesman for most Syrian rebel groups express support for these factions but make it clear their support is contingent upon fighting Assad.
They will be the sole remaining destabilizing force in the country and targeted by the government and all the government’s backers.
Their foreign backing and the influx of foreign fighters will diminish after the war.
If we maintain good relations with the rebels we may be able to attack these jihadist groups directly.
Although I hesitate to propose this as a reason - ISIS and al-Nusra cannot even defeat the Kurds and have to share a town with another rebel faction because they couldn’t beat them either. How are they going to defeat an entirely Western and Middle-Eastern backed FSA in a post-Assad Syria? Literally no government of any strength will continue to support them.
They can only hijack the civil war if the civil war continues. They now have room to operate and they are tolerated because they’re nominally on the same side. So that’s why I think doing nothing aids both Assad and al-Qaeda.
While I agree with your sentiment the argument I’m making is that jihadists are bat-shit crazy and willing to blow themselves and 30 random people to hell. It’s tough to fight that without the technology to track large numbers of people which I don’t see happening or Assad would have done it already.