The boundaries between the different groups are fluid. Lots of people originally with the FSA – or whatever goes for that on the ground – later switched to ISIS. Also American arms originally donated to FSA have been recovered in ISIS hands. The aid you give to FSA is more than likely to go directly or indirectly to ISIS.
I just heard on NPR that the Senate Armed Services Committee (or whichever committee controls this) already voted overwhelmingly to do this, but Reid would not bring a vote to the Senate Floor. Maybe he will now.
Not sure how things will sit in The House. Americans are pretty strongly behind this, so I’m guessing they will approve.
But I’m still really unclear about Syria. Obama says he will strike ISIL there if necessary. How can it not be necessary? Does FSA now have an air force? I’m hoping he’s bullshitting about “defeating” them in Syria and figures that as long as he can clear them out of Iraq (still no easy task) and they stop beheading Americans, that we’ve won.
But, remember, arming them to fight ISIS also arms them to fight Assad, later. We want him gone too, don’t we?
This is the problem with Syria. There are no good solutions, and I’m not even sure how you would figure out what the least worst solution is. The civil war has been terrible, so far, but it could get much, much worse. The varied ethnic landscape in Syria makes Iraq look like a homogeneous paradise. And whatever happens in Syria can easily spill over into Lebanon.
I can’t believe we still have this short-termist view of what happens to our military aid. You really think it will end with Assad?
“Let’s give them guns.”
“What happens after that war?”
“I said GIVE THEM GUNS!”
And then we’re surprised when our helicopters are being shot down with our own Stingers.
It might, if we generously give non-military aid to the next government.
We could give them all our prototypes and have them do the testing for us. Hey, when life deals you lemons, make lemonade, right?
It’s not that simple. A common assumption people make is that once you get rid of the bad guys, the good guys come in and peace and democracy blooms. That hasn’t proven to be true in the middle east thus far.
Assad is a bastard. Hussein was a bastard. But when they were in power, there was stability (and far less civilian casualties) in the region that we have not seen since 2003.
Also, John Mace’s point is very valid.
The problem is, it’s so difficult to collect customer feedback. They are notoriously resistant to staying on the phone to complete the automated survey.
You’re kind of making my point for me here. Remember all the aid we gave the Iranian government after propping up the Shah? Remember what happened next? “Generous” would be something of an understatement regarding the non-military aid we’ve given the new Afghani and Iraqi governments, but neither seems to have worked out very well. If we could guarantee that the new governments would remain in place, fine - but it turns out foreigners have their own ideas about what to do with the democracy we [del]force[/del] so generously bestow on them.
I was thinking of Libya. They’ve had no stable government since their civil war, but at least they have not been giving America or any other foreign country any trouble.
Right. No trouble at all.
In case anyone’s curious.
The legal theorybehind President’s use of force against ISIL (as well as his claim of Presidential Constitutional authority).
Is this plausible to anyone? I mean, Al Qaeda explicitly stated they have nothing to do with ISIL. Is this saying that ISIL is now Al Qaeda??
I think it’s saying that ISIL says it’s Al-Qaeda so we may as well take them at their word. Seems a bit thin to me, especially since Congress will presumably vote for a new AUMF if asked.
John McCain, 2013: ‘We must arm ISIS to defeat Assad.’
John McCain, 2014: ‘We must help Assad defeat ISIS.’
John McCain, 2015: ‘We must help Vietnam defeat the Communists.’
John McCain, 2016: ‘Has anyone seen my pants?’
Here’s a part of the speech I don’t understand:
It seems obvious that ISIL does indeed have a vision (and a tolerably clear and definite one at that): the establishment of an Islamic state in Iraq and the Levant.
Where’s the advantage in suggesting otherwise?
If by “advantage” you mean “intent” then I believe it was to express that establishing an Islamic state in Iraq and Levant is not really ISIL’s goal. If it was, they would take a less brutal more pragmatic/political approach.
I don’t see why that is necessarily so. They generally do offer people a choice: convert to their brand of Islam or die. Many people don’t want to convert.
Based on territory and influence, their approach currently seems to be working.
I don’t think “They aren’t working toward their stated aim in the way I think would be most efficient - therefore they aren’t actually seeking what they claim” is compelling logic.