I do not know who is winning, but I know what was lost. The Great Mosque of Aleppo was finished off today. Here are pictures and videos that show what it looked like before, during the fighting, and now today afterthe Minaret was destroyed. It had a good run I guess. It stood for over 1000 years. I am ashamed to be a part of the generation of humans that did this.
I’m confused by the pro-Assad comments. Isn’t he (or more specifically, his military) responsible for numerous human rights violations? Hasn’t he been accused of crimes against humanity? Isn’t his government killing its citizens?
Why are people fantastically talking about the rebels’ possibly giving al-Qaeda chemical weapons, or committing genocide against Christians, rather than talking about Assad’s actual crimes? Are the rebels really that awful?
I think the US has a responsibility to intervene in some manner, given this is possibly the largest humanitarian crisis in the world right now.
Ah, but his opponents are or are accused of being Islamic militants, which are the Communists of this generation. Bogeymen, against whom anything is justified no matter how barbaric the act or disgusting the ally.
To be blunt, one should follow the news. The al-Nusra Brigades, one of the more significant rebel groups, recently openly admitted they are allied with al-Qaeda. This isn’t some U.S. propaganda or “boogeymen”, this is what they have openly allied with and openly done, they wanted people to know this about themselves. That’s one that is openly allied with al-Qaeda, but there are tons of rebel groups fighting in Syria. I might think we should help some of them, others not, and others we should probably actively oppose their existence. The problem is, aside from the group that now openly allies with al-Qaeda I don’t know how to classify any of the Syrian rebel groups.
I’d imagine a U.S. intelligence analyst has a better ability to do this, but unfortunately as history has shown in the past oftentimes with rebellious groups like these their philosophies and behaviors are not static, but change over time. A group that might seem a good group to support today could be 2023’s Hussein Ba’ath Party or al-Qaeda.
A desire not to assist groups that we cannot trust is not the same as excusing Assad. But Assad is a known quantity, him and his family have been in power for a long time. He’s bad for Syria, but hasn’t really done much against the United States. An al-Qaeda aligned group taking over Syria might very well do something bad to the United States. I don’t know, but I don’t immediately assume the U.S. sticking its hands in will make things better for either us or Syria. Some problems nations have to go through on their own, and because of the recent revelations about some of Syria’s rebel groups I don’t see a way forward for us that doesn’t expose us to the kind of problems we got into with funding Mujahideen in Afghanistan and etc.
I think the Kurdish rebel groups would be worthy of support. But that’d never fly on account of the Turks.
And I’m proud that me and Bjørn Borg collectively have won a ton of tennis medals.
I do. The most recent news: Assad might be using chemical weapons, Assad is dumping executed bodies in the river, Assad is massacring people in hospitals.
You seem to be approaching this from a “what’s better for the US” perspective rather than a “what’s better for the Syrian people” perspective. I understand the reluctance to support rebel groups: one is allied with al-Qaeda, many are responsible for human rights violations (though Assad is much much worse), and there’s no telling what will happen if they take control of Syria. But we should think about tolerating that sort of uncertainty when the alternative is a regime that actually, right now, kills its own people.
But to get on topic: it’s likely he’ll stay in power barring an outside military intervention. And even if an intervention happens, it could just make the humanitarian crisis even worse, before it has a chance to get better.
There are three problems with this argument.
-
“admitted they are allied with al-Qaeda” doesn’t mean anything much. Al Qaeda is basically a tiny organization stuck onto a large franchise — most of the folks that call themselves Al Qaeda have no actual command relationship with the folks at top (most of whom are dead anyway) and do not necessarily have any interest in Al Qaeda’s international activities.
-
Not getting involved is sometimes the best idea, but one of the costs is that you stop having as much influence over who comes into power when the regime dies. The fact that sectarian groups have been gaining in prominence, even though the war started out with an everybody-but-the-Alawites-together kind of vibe, indicates in part that the sectarian folks have had better access to resources.
-
What IMFTFY said. Deciding who you want to win on the basis that the nasty dictator might be less anti-US was a gross and counterproductive way to operate back in the 50’s when you could topple governments in secret and get away with it, never mind today.
In general, though, I don’t think it’s time to change the prediction that Assad will lose this one. Unless he has been consolidating his power base within the population, individual military victories only delay the inevitable.
I was watching the first video you linked to. Beautiful, 1000 year old mosque. Some lovely string music. And a pop up asking, “Where can I buy sexy lingerie?”
Stay classy, Internet.
Can you quote the “pro-Assad” comments?
Really? I would have thought that it meant they were looking to establish a fundamentalist Islamic government similar to what we saw with the Taliban in Afghanistan. I didn’t realize that what it really meant was a chicken in every pot and legalized SSM. But what do I know? I mean, “I am aligned with al Qaeda” might just be code language for “I love kittens and puppies”.
This, perhaps:
That’s arguably pro-Assad in a “he’s good for America and to hell with the Syrian people” sort of way.
How do you get “he’s good for America” from “he hasn’t done much against the US” ?
One is value neutral, the other is value positive.
Because it’s more positive to America than the (supposedly) anti-American rebels.
And this:
I suppose one could call these pro-“Assad-staying-in-power” comments rather than pro-Assad in general, but it would take an impressive level of cognitive dissonance to favor an Assad regime while simultaneously criticizing his abominable crimes against Syrians.
FWIW, one self appointed ME expert told me Assad tried to liberalize the economy along with personal freedoms, when he first came to power after his father died. He’d lived in the west and AFAIK, concluded that this was in the countries long-term interest to move gradually to a more capitalist society. But his mother and the rest of the cronies made it clear it wasn’t happening, and the things regressed back to normal.
That doesn’t make it pro. That makes it less anti.
-1 is greater than -2 , but it’s still not positive. You have to get past 0 before you can be either positive or pro.
It’s funny to see the lefties here being so paranoid about being somehow associated with the righties that they pretend that unless you completely denounce Assad that you are a booster.
Or that “being aligned with al Qaeda” means nothing. In the last election, I had a choice between one candidate who was a progressive Democrat, and one who was aligned with al Qaeda, but I couldn’t choose between them since being aligned with al Qaeda means nothing.
To be blunt—the fact is that Assad is only killing his own people (gee, such a nice guy…)
But that’s better for the rest of the world than killing other people.
It’s a terrible humanitarian tragedy–just like North Korea. But , like N. Korea, interference from western nations could make it worse.
Right now, the tragedy is confined to Syria, and Assad has a long history of not trying to spread his cruelty beyond his own borders.
When Assad falls, the one and only option for a new goverment will be a fanatic Islamic group. They will be just as cruel, but will proudly declare that they intend to spread their violence outside of Syria. They have already attacked Israel several times, across a border which Assad kept peaceful for 35 years.
Speaking as Syria’s nervous neighbor, I can’t say I’m either pro- or anti-Assad. I have no love for the man and would be happy to see him go, but what I really am is anti-chaos. I don’t want al-Qaeda on the Golan Heights. I don’t want Hizballah to get chemical weapons. I want things to calm down and for rational people to take charge of the country.
I’m sorry if I come off as more interested in Israel’s benefit than in that of the Syrian people, but for me, it’s not a matter of abstract “great game” geopolitics. It’s missiles on my house. And frankly, my country was at war with Syria long before the Assads came into power, and chances are, we’ll still be at war with whoever replaces them.
I guess I’ve rolled into bizarro world. Sometimes I think the left on this board just defines itself oppositionally.
Here you have me, an avowed conservative arguing:
- U.S. involvement in Syria may not present a clear option that is positive for the United States.
- U.S. involvement in Syria may not be good for Syria, either.
In response it feels like the liberals here are arguing that we should take an activist stance on foreign policy and meddle in the internal affairs of other countries “because we might make things better.” I remember a time during the Bush Presidency where those exact same concepts were routinely dismissed by liberals here.
And as for me focusing on what’s good for America, I’m an American, I care about human tragedies but my first interest is that my country does what is best for it in international relations, and I don’t see a clear “good option” for us in Syria.
Secondarily, as has been proven after our meddling in other countries over the years our intervention can often serve no good or even make things worse for the citizens of that country.
We don’t know that. That’s just an assumption on your part.
Assad is a murderous monster. Decent people, of all political affiliations in all countries, should be glad to see his demise, and the sooner the better. All elements fighting against him are on the right side, for now.
Could some of those elements later turn on each other, or on innocents, or on us (whoever “us” is for you)? Well, of course. This is pretty much always the case. The alliances of the last struggle are subject to shift for the next one… particularly if no efforts are made to win the peace.
That doesn’t make it any less good when tyrants fall.