Who Is Winning In Syria?

[Der_Trihs]

@John_Mace

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.

Oh please; supporting bloodthirsty dictators against a bogeyman is a standard American behavior. When some American starts talking about how a dictator is better than the alternative, it sounds like history repeating itself.

@Martin_Hyde

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.

Bush and the neocons were amoral monsters who were incapable of making things better for anyone or anything but the bottom lines of their corporate cronies. Supporting Bush meant supporting mass slaughter, torture, massive amounts of destruction, conquest and looting; he was a neocolonialist. Supporting Bush in any way was an evil act. Yes, including voting for him.

@Terr

From what I know of the area, that pogrom (I would actually upgrade it to “massacre”) is pretty much guaranteed if Assad falls.

And pretty much guaranteed if he doesn’t, too. It’ll just be different people massacred.

[Trinopus]

@Der_Trihs

. . . When some American starts talking about how a dictator is better than the alternative, it sounds like history repeating itself. . . .

True…but that doesn’t make it an invalid argument. Monstrous dictators come in gradations. It isn’t automatically fallacious to prefer a mere ogre to an out-and-out demon.

However, it is pretty much fallacious to predict that the new overlord would be such a demon. He might…or might not.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Der_Trihs

Oh please; supporting bloodthirsty dictators against a bogeyman is a standard American behavior. When some American starts talking about how a dictator is better than the alternative, it sounds like history repeating itself.

Bush and the neocons were amoral monsters who were incapable of making things better for anyone or anything but the bottom lines of their corporate cronies. Supporting Bush meant supporting mass slaughter, torture, massive amounts of destruction, conquest and looting; he was a neocolonialist. Supporting Bush in any way was an evil act. Yes, including voting for him.

No one is talking about supporting Assad right now, specifically in this thread but additionally in the U.S. government either.

Otherwise, unless I drove my DeLorean over 88 MPH and accidentally ended up back in 2006 I don’t see the relevance of your anti-Bush screed. We’re talking about a very dangerous situation in Syria where I take it you are advocating we arm rebel groups. Which groups would you advocate we arm? With what level of weapons? Also, please elucidate how this will further U.S. interests, elucidate why you believe that Syria isn’t comparable to the situation in Afghanistan when we started giving weapons to the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets. There was a terrible, murderous enemy in that war too, and we gave weapons to the “good guys”, particularly because of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” concept, but at the end of the day it resulted in very bad people basically being armed by the United States. Why do we expect something similar will not happen in Syria?

[Martin_Hyde]

@I_Made_French_Toast_For_You

A fanatic Islamic group is not the one and only option if Assad falls. There are many different flavors of opposition, including peaceful and secular groups – unfortunately we only hear about the most violent/radical ones.

It wasn’t the only option when the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan either. The fact that it is an option should make us question our decision here. Throughout the Cold War we backed all kinds of groups, and many turned out to be terrible monsters when in power. No one has explained to me how we pick the “right” group in Syria. If we can’t do that, all we’re talking about is replacing one monster with another.

Rather than comparing the Syria crisis to Bush’s debacles, I think we should be comparing it to the Bosnian war, or even Rwanda. The arguments you make above are similar to arguments made by most Americans when Clinton wanted to intervene in Bosnia. He did so, it helped to resolve the crisis, and Eastern Europe is a MUCH better place for it.

Let’s hear why you believe Syria is more like Bosnia and Rwanda than it is like Somalia or Afghanistan, places where U.S. interventionism either failed (Somalia) or resulted in us arming people who would ultimately be our mortal enemies (Afghanistan.)

[John_Mace]

@Der_Trihs

Oh please; supporting bloodthirsty dictators against a bogeyman is a standard American behavior. When some American starts talking about how a dictator is better than the alternative, it sounds like history repeating itself.

Uhm, Rune is not American, and **Martin Hyde’**s comments can only be construed as pro-Assad if you ignore the first part of his quote: “He’s bad for Syria”.

But one is reminded of the flack people took for opposing Bush and being “pro-Saddam”. The mind boggles.

[Der_Trihs]

@Martin_Hyde

Otherwise, unless I drove my DeLorean over 88 MPH and accidentally ended up back in 2006 I don’t see the relevance of your anti-Bush screed.

:dubious: The fact that you brought him up, that’s the “relevance”.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Der_Trihs

:dubious: The fact that you brought him up, that’s the “relevance”.

Fair point. Now that you have that out of your system, I’ll restate:

We’re talking about a very dangerous situation in Syria where I take it you are advocating we arm rebel groups. Which groups would you advocate we arm? With what level of weapons? Also, please elucidate how this will further U.S. interests, elucidate why you believe that Syria isn’t comparable to the situation in Afghanistan when we started giving weapons to the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets. There was a terrible, murderous enemy in that war too, and we gave weapons to the “good guys”, particularly because of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” concept, but at the end of the day it resulted in very bad people basically being armed by the United States. Why do we expect something similar will not happen in Syria?

[Der_Trihs]

@Martin_Hyde

We’re talking about a very dangerous situation in Syria where I take it you are advocating we arm rebel groups.

No, I’m not. I don’t know what to do; I just don’t want us to yet again support some murderous dictator because it’s convenient at the moment, and then be shocked when the result is millions of people who hate us.

[Ibn_Warraq]

I’m a bit perplexed by Der Trih’s seeming belief that the Assad regimes have been pro-US.

The Ba’athist regime is a self-declared “radical socialist republic” which was a long-time ally of the Soviet Union, regularly denounced the US, has been a close ally of both the Iranian regime and Hezbollah, certainly came to loggerheads with the US in Lebanon and may or may not have been involved with the Marine Baracks bombing.

Yes, following the invasion of Kuwait and Saddam’s attempt to rattle his saber there was a certain “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” attitude towards him, but nothing comparable to US-Egypt relations.

I think a lot of people when it comes to the Middle East use their own preconceptions and biases to fit square pegs into round holes.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Der_Trihs

No, I’m not. I don’t know what to do; I just don’t want us to yet again support some murderous dictator because it’s convenient at the moment, and then be shocked when the result is millions of people who hate us.

Who is advocating we support Assad?

[The_Sheikh]

@Punoqllads

Salafists with Saudi/Qatari ground-to-air missile capability will probably not make Israel safer.

Really? Salafists? and what’s that exactly? Why do many people are blindly thinking that Saudis are enemies of Israel and anti American?

[I_Made_French_Toast_For_You]

@Martin_Hyde

It wasn’t the only option when the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan either. The fact that it is an option should make us question our decision here. Throughout the Cold War we backed all kinds of groups, and many turned out to be terrible monsters when in power. No one has explained to me how we pick the “right” group in Syria. If we can’t do that, all we’re talking about is replacing one monster with another.

We’ve already picked a group: the Free Syrian Army, whom we’re providing with food, medicine, and non-lethal military aid. We also generally support the Syrian National Council opposition, now the National Council for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. Are these the “right” groups? They seem more “right” than Assad, but they’re also far from ideal.

Let’s hear why you believe Syria is more like Bosnia and Rwanda than it is like Somalia or Afghanistan, places where U.S. interventionism either failed (Somalia) or resulted in us arming people who would ultimately be our mortal enemies (Afghanistan.)

The poorly worded point I was trying to make with the Bosnia and Rwanda examples was to show that not all US interventions are bad – reading this thread, one might have the false impression that every foreign crisis the US touches turns to shit, or that all US abstentions from action are for the best. It’s very difficult to compare all of these disparate situations, and I don’t presume to be an expert.

Putting all my cards on the table: I would like Assad removed from power, and I think the US has a part to play in this crisis, but I don’t know what that part is because “more guns” and “more soldiers” don’t seem like good answers. However, that could change if we get more (hopefully solid) intel on Assad’s penchant for chemical weapons.

[John_Mace]

@I_Made_French_Toast_For_You

We’ve already picked a group: the Free Syrian Army, whom we’re providing with food, medicine, and non-lethal military aid. We also generally support the Syrian National Council opposition, now the National Council for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. Are these the “right” groups? They seem more “right” than Assad, but they’re also far from ideal.

Far from ideal, indeed.

I do not want to see us giving them arms. This is none of our business, and anything the US does should be handled through the UN.

[The_Sheikh]

@John_Mace

Far from ideal, indeed.

I do not want to see us giving them arms. This is none of our business, and anything the US does should be handled through the UN.

Children throats are slit in front of their parents just because Obama doesn’t want to give right wingers any reason to attack him. Don’t arm the Syrian, don’t stop the massacres, don’t be so kind and “bring democracy” to the Syrian people. Don’t do any of that, but also don’t prevent others from arming them.

[I_Made_French_Toast_For_You]

@John_Mace

Far from ideal, indeed.

I do not want to see us giving them arms. This is none of our business, and anything the US does should be handled through the UN.

What’s truly horrifying, is that they’re angels compared to the Assad regime.

[Esco]

Syrian govt supposedly has unleashed nerve gas on its citizens: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3749322.ece

[John_Mace]

@Esco

Syrian govt supposedly has unleashed nerve gas on its citizens: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3749322.ece

Nerve gas = bad, but how many people were killed or injured by it vs how many have been killed or injured by those mamby-pamby conventional weapons? What is it, 1,000:1 conventional:nerve?

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

Allowing this conflict to continue is unbelievably foolish. The only enemy America is currently at war against is gaining power in Syria. The al-Nusra Front has recently shown it is willing to align itself with al-Qaeda. They number in the thousands.

Young men whose minds embrace militant Islam are racing to fight in the war. However the war ends, they will remain, and they can probably be easily steered toward hostile actions against any country.

More than a million refugees have spread into Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. What happens if they can never go home? Do refugees or the children of refugees ever feel disconnected with their adopted homeland and commit terrorist acts? Maybe that only works with Chechens.

Our chief bogeyman is a terrorist with WMDs, yet we are entrusting the protection of a variety of chemical weapons to the Syrian regime, which seems unable to turn the war in their favor. Yes, they probably temporarily made some gains in the South of the country, but they are losing ground in the North. How long before a military base is lost that contains chemical weapons?

We should be identifying those parts of the rebellion that are not religious militants or foreign fighters on a mission from god, arm these elements to the teeth and give them whatever food and medical aid they need to gain popularity among the locals.

We should provide them air superiority if that doesn’t work out. Except of course where al-Nusra Front operates.

We should be working to end this war and btw, nobody advocating for supporting the rebels believes we should involve ourselves at the Bush level of idiocy and incompetence. Obama’s military advisers seem to have the right idea in pursuing involvement in these conflicts and I see little to claim as failure. On the other hand, Bush’s involvement in regime change was based on a series of half-truths and wishful thinking, followed by incompetence and arrogance. There’s no comparison except at the most superficial levels. Perhaps that is the best level of analysis many are able to muster.

I simply do not see what could be the upside to continuing to let Syria devolve into a failed state. It has only harmed our country. Failed sates, or failed states taken over by radical Muslims have continued to hurt us for at least the past 20 years (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen, Somalia, Taliban-controlled areas of Pakistan) yet we seem to be unable to learn from the lesson and use our military might to bring a decisive end to a conflict that would be absurdly one-sided in our favor. This is especially the case because it requires none of our ground forces.

[Alessan]

It’s not like the U.S. would be the first foreign country to get involved - Iran has sent tens of billions of dollars worth of support to the Syrian government, while Russia is providing them with weapons; Saudi Arabia is sending support to radical Islamic elements in return. It’s not like the U.S. can pretend that this war is a “local” matter - it already is an international conflict, just one the U.S. isn’t taking part in.

[Gyrate]

@John_Mace

Indeed. I’m thinking back to 2002 where someone might say: “As bad as Saddam Hussein is, he isn’t a threat to the US” and someone like Der Trihs coming along and labeling that person pro-Saddam.

Bizarre. Back then it was the lefties saying “As bad as Saddam Hussein is, he isn’t a threat to the US” and the righties (usually december) coming along and labelling that person and anyone within a 500-mile radius of that person as pro-Saddam. How the world changes.

Assad is a monster, but monsters like him and Saddam and Tito often enforce stability in regions filled with factions that, without the control imposed from above, devolve into the sort of internecine violence we’ve seen time and time again. So - do you want stability at the cost of human rights abuses, or do you want freedom at the cost of a period of war and potentially a hostile group taking power? You pays your money and you takes your chance.

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

I simply do not see what could be the upside to continuing to let Syria devolve into a failed state. It has only harmed our country. Failed sates, or failed states taken over by radical Muslims have continued to hurt us for at least the past 20 years (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen, Somalia, Taliban-controlled areas of Pakistan) yet we seem to be unable to learn from the lesson and use our military might to bring a decisive end to a conflict that would be absurdly one-sided in our favor. This is especially the case because it requires none of our ground forces.

Unless you’re proposing a “nuke 'em all and let God sort them out” approach I’m not seeing a use of military might that would “bring a decisive end to a conflict that would be absurdly one-sided in our favor”. Syria is not Libya - geographically, politically, socially. We can’t just bomb a few airstrips and leave the rebels to it. So what approach were you thinking of?