You are somewhat wrong, as XT pointed out, but I have to also remind others that Turkey has been taking military action in Syria for a few years now. So no they are not doing this because of the U.S and Russia. As for Iraq, Turkey had been taking military action since 2008. Not continuously, but it’s nothing new for Turkey to hit targets in Syria and Iraq, and it has been doing it way before the current conflict and U.S/Russia.
The Europeans have hardly been “generous”, few of them have and only reluctantly. Most have been pretty hostile and only accepted after the situation got out of hand. Look when tens of thousands are coming in literally everyday, there is not much a nation can do to stop them. Look Hungary, it has toned down it’s right wing nonsense even after building a fence.
So no the Europeans have NOT been generous. That distinction would go to Syria’s small neighbors Jordan and Lebanon, who have been reeling with the burden for a few years now.
The refugees will continue to come and there is squat the Europeans can do. Let’s not kid ourselves. Whether they “owe” Syrians anything is beside the point, this is real life and when things happen it is not based on who owes or does not owe.
As for their response for being “poked in the eye”, please do tell me.:rolleyes:
I will also point out that Russia will bomb the Chechens or anyone who advocates splitting from it territorially, but is more than happy to split off territory and support separatists in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova etc when it suits it’s interests.
Russia is the epitome of hypocrisy on the world stage.
In closing I will only say that we will have to see if these actions by Russia and it’s allies will help Assad not only win back territory but more crucially win and END the conflict in Syria? To date Assad has failed to end the war.
I am not surprised by the targeting of the rebels by Russia, the plan of the Russia-Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis is to destroy ALL opposition in Syria, ESPECIALLY moderates so that there would only be Assad and ISIS. I have stressed this countless times on various Syria threads here on the Dope over the past month. Assad wants to stay in power and only have ISIS survive. He knows the West is scared and obsessed with “terrorism” and “Islamists”. He knows how to play this, just like dictators of the past used to play the 'us vs. communists" game. Any dictator in the Muslims world will use this “us vs. Islamists” card to gain favor. Including this savage Bashar Assad, who is more of an animal than his late father Hafez Assad.
Of course there will be right wing idiots in the West who will cheer him on and say “look he is killing Islamists, he is secular, and he is killing his own people and our enemies, hey hey hey”. And don’t get me started with the Putin fan boys, some who lurk right here. They see him as this genius, tough guy who will correct everything and put the evil rebels in their place and make America and Obama look bad and foolish.
The left love him too, as long as he prevents America from taking military action, he is “great” They will also say well “sure Assad is a terrible savage, but he let’s women drive and wear what they want, we should back”. Putin and Assad know so many morons live in the West.
The big question, will this game go according to plan or will Assad find yet again like everything he has thrown against his opponents since 2011, he still fails to end the war, capture all of Syria and his ISIS vs. Him narrative fails? Or Putin finds that things get way too out of hand, his image of a great statesman who is tough and willing to get the job done is crumbling, the costs go way up for Russia?
Ditto for the 13th century savages in Iran, who will see their barbarian ally fail to end the war in Syria, the costs go up, the nuclear deal did not solve everything, relations did not improve vastly with the West and Rouhani’s promises turn to naught?
Surely Saudi Arabia and other Arab states won’t let the rebels be crushed, they have long stopped relying on America and the West. Saudi Arabia will never allow Assad and Iran to go back to pre 2011. They know this is unacceptable. Saudi Arabia is the forefront of stopping Iran’s terrorism in the region.
And meanwhile Syrians who are resilient will leave their country and sneak into Europe.
We will have to wait and see.
Anyways that does it for me and this thread for now. Too much posts.
If only the endgame could be a quick game of chess
Certainly not accurate to say his cronies aren’t Shia, since he counts Iran among his cronies and the Iranians certainly are.
What’s shocking is that Lebanon, of all places, has become a place refugees go to! 
And they’re not even Palestinian!
It will be, but the bishops have chemical weapons, knights have fighter-bombers, pawns have AK-47s . . .
False dichotomy. No one entering Europe has been turned away. They mostly want to go to Germany and Sweden, and that’s where most of them are headed.
Syria is having a civil war. Bummer, but most countries have had civil wars. This is nothing that “the international community” needs to do anything about.
Come on. This is waaay beyond a civil war.
Well, no, it’s an extreme case of civil war. They’re always nasty, and often complicated if not essentially caused by ethnic or sectarian divisions.
So, we just let it drag on year after blood soaked year because it ain’t our problem? And we let the Assad’s of the world do whatever they like, slaughter however many they like because that’s internal and a mans got to do what a mans got to do?? Oh, and it’s cool that Assad et al invited in Russia to help with the slaughter because he’s in charge and should be able to do that sort of thing?
Naw…I disagree. Again, just because the US is bad at helping out doesn’t mean that doing something about stuff like Syria is a bad idea…and because the UN’s boys club bars countries from helping out in situations like this with UN sanction because one of the in club decides they don’t like it is not a feature…it’s a huge bug. Which is why the UN isn’t taken very seriously…certainly the Syria people have got to be asking WTF it’s good for.
Here are the choices:
-
Help out Assad (or let Russia do it), hoping his regime is restored to something close to status quo ante, then let him stabilize the country.
-
Leave Syria alone, so either (1) happens or Russia fails, resulting in ISIS + Al Queda taking over, and getting their “caliphate” started.
-
Both (1) and (2) - the country is split in two (or three, if Kurds decide to assert some sovereignty. Or four…).
-
None of the above - the fighting continues for decades until there is nothing left standing and few people left. Always the risk of either (1) or (2) happening.
-
Massive US invasion (really, US being the only one really capable of doing it), occupy the country and try to wipe out both Assad regime and the Islamists, then try to achieve in Syria what we failed to do in Iraq.
did I miss anything? If I didn’t - pick one. If I did - describe your scenario.
What, exactly, are we supposed to do, and how, exactly, is it supposed to work?
No. When it spills out this far it’s a different thing. The nastiness was not my intended point at all.
Can anyone please explain what Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia have at stake, fundamentally, in the Syrian civil war?
Yes, I get that Iran “backs” Assad, so ostensibly they care that he stays in power. But… why? How are they worse off if he falls? I guess they get to exercise some control over Hezbollah by maintaining a role in Syria/Lebanon, but… what exactly do they get out of that? Would the Iranian regime be in jeopardy if they lost the capacity to throw rockets at Israel via Hezbollah?
Likewise, how does Saudi Arabia benefit from Assad falling other than some sort of bragging rights over Iran? The Syrian civil war is often characterized as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran… but what, at bottom, is the source of the conflict between them? I’ve heard that the Saudi family are terrified that Iran will “export” the Islamic revolution to the KSA, but what would Iran gain from doing this, assuming Iran has that capability at all? What if anything is the structural conflict of interest between them?
As for Russia, they’ve got naval assets in Syria and sell them weapons, but how much do these actually matter to their national interest? Are they really important enough to justify wading into what is sure to be an utter cluster-fuck for the Russians?
Anybody have good reading recommendations relating to the above?
Russia has a historical relationship with Assad relating to their naval refueling station there. It actually is really run down now, but was once an important part of Soviet force projection and that alone is enough for Putin to really want to still have it, even if it serves little practical purpose in the immediate sense. But having the ability to keep Assad there so eventually (in his dream scenario) he can fix it up and make it nice again is worth a lot to him.
There is also a desire to focus attention elsewhere than Ukraine. The cease fire is actually being respected by both sides now, and Putin probably wants the sanctions to end at some point. There is a lot of speculation if he can shift the dialogue between him and the West to the Middle East, eyes will be less focused on Ukraine and less desirous of maintaining sanctions that a lot of European powers were never too committed to in the first place.
Saudi Arabia and Iran have been essentially fighting a proxy war throughout the Middle East for a generation now, it’s a battle between the Saudi brand of Sunni Islam and the Iranian brand of Shia Islam, and both have fairly predictably supporter their sect over the alternative, both want to be power brokers in the greater middle east and are using tons of money and resources to that end. Saudi Arabia is the far richer country and its approach has been throwing tons of money around. Iran is the larger country (population wise) and has a larger military and more trained soldiers, Iran has tended to lend more operational support and sometimes equipment support, making up for its lack of hard currency to fund stuff by sending in really highly trained (relative to the chaff fighting in most of these insurgencies) soldiers who can train and direct their side.
Now that there are Russian troops on the ground, I think this is no longer an option. I believe that if we really wanted to, this would have been the best option prior to the arrival of the Russian forces. Invading Syria would likely have been no more difficult than the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were. As for what to do once he have completed the occupation, I think reshaping the country from the ground up would be the way to go. Do things the old school way, like we did with Japan and Germany after WWII. We would write a Western style constitution for them, and build the country back up from the ground, the way MacArthur did in Japan. The argument against this is that the Syrians (or Iraqis or Afghans previously) hate Americans and wouldn’t go along with it. I’m sure the Japanese people at the end of WWII probably hated Americans as well, but we were able to make that work. I think the difference between the two situations is our lack of willingness to do what it takes. What I have in mind is a rebuilding effort that would be run by an American with an understanding of Syria, who is tasked with doing things for the benefit of the Syrian people, not for the benefit of Western corporations. The latter is what went wrong with Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. If we had installed a governor who had run things for the benefit of the Iraqis, rather than for the benefit of Halliburton or Blackwater, I think things would have turned out very differently, for the better.
Invasion would be too costly by all means and disastrous for us and Syrians. Best option was a bombing campaign of wiping out Syria’s military, mainly the airforce, missiles and what not. At this point Assad’s only advantage was it’s planes and he was still losing ground.
So after his air force is annihilated, let the rebels fight him and watch as he loses more territory.