It might be, if there were evidence for that. The official data is that only non-lethal aid was given before early 2013 and weapon drops only started in 2015. Which was and still is seen as a limp response vs a syrian army using cluster bombs.
Besides, we were talking about whether the US started or caused the syrian civil war: helping to arm one side falls short of that.
Well, right now I’d put it beyond the bounds of credulity. It’s an extraordinary claim in wait of extraordinary evidence.
First of all, based on what?
Secondly, this is tacitly conceding that your earlier speculation that the whole arab spring could have been started by the US was based on nothing and “Just Asking Questions”.
Again this just shows you are throwing out random speculation. The US is either the prime mover, or an equal player, or only sideways involved. But whichever it is, they are apparently responsible for ISIS. :rolleyes:
I’d just like to note that the “Assad regime” and the “Syrian army” are largely misnomers; to the best of my knowledge, Assad has no control of anything beyond a few neighborhoods of Damascus, and the Syrian army no longer exists. All combat operations on the non-Sunni side of the conflict are conducted by Hizballah, other Iranian-led Shi’ite militias, and local warlords controlling the remnants of the Syrian military, who are only nominally under Assad’s command.
Without our involvement no regional faction will concern themselves with defeating ISIS. As a result ISIS will eventually be allowed to hold territory that no faction particularly wants in the short term.
ISIS will be able to broker deals with countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia if our ‘moral guidance’ doesn’t play a role. This will allow ISIS to hold territory in the long term.
This territory will be the source of many terrorist attacks on us and our allies.
This territory will allow ISIS to spread its ‘brand’ all over the world leading to greater chaos than there already is in North Africa, West Africa, the Middle East, and on into the Caucuses and Central Asia.
Our ethical interest:
Without our involvement there would be no ceasefire or any discussion of a peace process.
The Kurds (who are going to make great allies if we don’t fuck this up; put that in strategic up top) will be between ISIS and Turkey and likely lose a lot of territory and suffer ethnic cleansing.
Smaller ethnic groups will suffer ethnic cleansing.
It’s a small effort for us to aid in the defeat of ISIS and the result is freeing people from savages.
Tactically:
We are becoming ever more effective at providing air support while working with relatively lightly armed local groups to meet our objectives. The campaign against ISIS, where our bombing missions are involved, has largely been successful after all.
It sounds disingenuous because I never said or implied that humanitarian reasons are the only reason to intervene against ISIL. That’s something you’ve assumed I said, that I never did.
My point is that there are quite a few posters in this thread who have outright stated variations on a particular theme: fuck those Middle Easterners, I don’t want anything to do with them. My point in bringing up the humanitarian angle is that if someone has such animosity toward Muslims, then the policy they espouse will result in more women being stoned, more toddler refugee drownings, more destruction of irreplaceable world heritage sites, and so on.
If you want to ask me other reasons to care about ISIL, because you don’t find massacres of innocent people alarming enough to do something about, go ahead and ask.
Okay, so NOW you ask. In June 2014, ISIL was knocking on the door of Baghdad. I don’t think it would be good to have the Iraqi government fall to the most insane terrorists I’m aware of.
Part and parcel of the civil war, one of the best American allies in the region, Jordan, is at risk of being totally overwhelmed by the chaos in Syria. The Jordanian Royal Family is a hugely important influence on rational Mid-East policies – even though the King has a few quirks – and we owe it to them not to have ISIL reach its awful tentacles to a very long and mostly undefendable border.
Turkey is kind of a mess, but I can’t see any way in which ISIL gaining control of more territory along that very long border would help anything.
I can go on, but suffice it to say that I think those are just a couple of decent reasons to do something. Oh yeah, and how many Parisians has ISIL killed? Does that matter to you?
I disagree. The Syrian military is made up of something around 100,000 troops (cite from November 2015). There was a report on CNN a few days ago that the Russians flew something like 80 bombing missions in one day, where the Syrians flew something like that number plus 50 percent. (Looking for the CNN cite, can’t find it.)
ETA: This is dated, but in June 2015, the Syrian air force “claims” to have conducted about 200 attacks per day. Link.
Meanwhile, the number of Hizbollah troops are estimated to be less than 10,000. Iranian troops once numbered roughly the same amount, but it sounds like they are leaving.
Now, I have zero doubt that the Syrian ground troops are not a quality fighting force, and at this point could even be considered incompetent (as some of the articles note that Syrian commanders are worthless). But Alessan’s assertion that there basically is no Syrian military anymore goes too far.
Would the reason that Russia has gone into Syria is in the long game they would like to have bases in Syria giving them a Mediterranean port. Bases in Syria would also allow Russia to exert pressure upon Turkey from the south (Syria) and from the north (Crimea)
Russia has a small fleet based in the Crimea but would be land locked if Turkey decided to NOT give them access to the Med, Gibraltar could also stop Russian access to the Med
We’re doing it with Central Africa now. Portions of Asia. We’ve always picked our battles; the prevention of genocide or human rights violations has never been our only consideration.
Are you under the delusion that SA is in the same league as ISIS wrt murdering, raping and general slaughter, including that of gays?? As to genocide, perhaps look up the word ‘Yazidi’ then come back and we can talk…there is obviously a lot going on that you’ve missed in your blind hatred of all things US.
We are in more an advisory or assistant role this time around, taking a back seat and trying to allow the regional powers to take care of this. We haven’t been the best at direct intervention in our history, so I think this has been a wise course for Obama to take, to be honest. What has Russia and it’s direct intervention accomplished besides pissing even more people off and doing even more damage? And it’s costing them more than they can afford to screw up this badly as well.
Because you have a voter base willing to pay for military to fight for other countries, while the rest of the world sits back and watched illegal streams of Hollywood films based of European culture.
