I wonder if Assad (if he were really on the ropes) would use sarin gas against his enemies (like he did 2 years ago). It might work this time.
Sarin is a non-persistent agent. Even when contained during the Tokyo subway attacks it wasn’t all that lethal although it produced a large need for medical attention. The worse things get for the regime, the less capability the Syrian Army has to use to capitalize on the short term battlefield effects. Their capability to deliver a heavy attack may have been degraded due to losses in the intervening time. The Syrian Army ability to coordinate the chemical strike with other attacks may have also been degraded in the intervening time (loss of key leaders, communications systems, etc). I’d say it’s less likely to be effective now than before.
Of course desperation makes even slim odds look better than the alternative.
It “worked” last time. IIRC, it successfully cleared out a stubborn pocket. Don’t know why it would be particularly useful now nor what it has to do with your OP.
I think one thing that we need to remember in re Saddam’s chances to step down; he wasn’t given a 'step down, retire, live a long life, and watch your grandchildren play under a fig tree" chance. He would have stepped down, been imprisoned, kind of like the Egyptian guy (Mubarak??), and, hanged just the same. (I’m not going to say ‘hung’, I’ve done that just about the right number of times, lately).
Are you sure? I thought that it was at least open to negotiation. I think if Saddam had said he was willing to step down from power and allow a regime change, a deal would have been made. Idi Amin, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, “Baby Doc” Duvalier, Ferdinand Marcos, Pervez Musharraf, Kwame Nkrumah, Ali Abdullah Saleh, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Nguyen Van Thieu were all allowed to go off in exile (although Duvalier and Musharraf chose to go back to their homelands and were both arrested).
So you think we should help ISIL then?
Your ideas about this are like the fantasies of a student playing at the model UN. it is all thin theory and no understanding of the real group interests or the real dynamics of the power.
stating “I would say x” as the idea that this is a solution is very silly and student naive. There is no trust to make any such assertion credible and even if as a party there was some credibility, there is no reason for any faction not to suspect that one of the hard men with guns will not kill you at the right moment.
several years into civil war the common trust and bonds are destroyed and the expedient and the ruthless dominate - this is usual in such civil wars. the idea of a white knight riding in is without any foundation, it is fantasy.
To think of solutions, it is better to study the real world and the real histories of the solutions to the many sided civil wars, like the example of the Lebanon and the Balkans.
otherwise I do not think it is credible to fantasize about Assed leaving, he is not stupid and he knows no asylum in the modern law world will save him. And the Alaouites and the Druse and the Shiites (and the christians) will know that after this civil war, if there is the absolute Sunni victory, it will be led by the hard salafistes of the Sunni, coming from the disadvantated Sunni and not the old clans, and this will lead to the settling of scores that will be bloody…
these are the realities, making pretend does not change them. Solutions come around taking them as the beginning.
You mean like the USA’s great partner and ally Saudi Arabia?
Do you think the United States should help ISIL?
Just to anticipate your next non-response:
For the third time, do you think the United States should help ISIL?
So if Assad and his Alawite buddies fight to the death, what would be left of Syria? the economy is wrecked, millions are in exile, and the country’s infrastructure is destroyed. who would pay for a post-war reconstruction? I HOPE the USA stays completely out of this.
I suggest you can learn the history of the Lebanon and the civil war there. It is the most likely of the templates. It is only with the fatigue of the parties it ended. I also remind that the Assed regime was a party to both this civil war from time to time and also the accords that ended this civil war.
It is in understanding this history and how it is understood in the region you can have an idea of the paths of the resolution.
Or Americans can keep imagining what they imagine is what others think and have the successes that they have had with the Irak and elsewhere.
I wouldn’t assume the war is over at that point the regime falls. It just moves on to the next stage with the inside elements fighting and external powers playing it for their own advantage. Along the lines of Afghanistan. First the Soviets withdrew. Then the insurgents fought with the Soviet installed government. When it fell they proceeded to jockey and fight for power. in 2001 the Taliban still did not control the entire country when the US went in.
Turkey and Israel both border Syria and are major regional powers. The relationship with Israel is weaker at the moment but we probably wouldn’t ignore a serious threat to them. Turkey is a NATO ally that could call for Article 5 help if there were attacks from whatever followed. Shoving our head in the sand and hoping for the best might not be an option. There’s certainly plenty of regional capacity to address it. There’s also regional splits that will play out Sunni-Shia, Turkey-Saudia Arabia for Sunni leadership, and the old favorite Arab-Israel. Just someone to bring them to the table might be huge.
Why do you hate America?
#non-sequiturSunday
Which enemy should the U.S. deal with first: Assad or ISIL? Or both at the same time? Or neither one ever?
I can’t say that “I’m sure”, but, I can’t see it happening in Saddam’s favor. Of all of these other examples, I (I don’t know the facts surrounding most of your examples) only know of the US’s animosity and direct involvement with Hussein, not the others. I think that the US was gunning for him since DS1, and had no desire to let him get off. If not directly, pressure would have been put on our allies to make it look like THEY were the ones that were so outraged that he needed to have his neck stretched.
Nobody seems to know what Russia is doing, but Iran is actually increasing their support of Assad.
ISIS are, of course, very keen to be an enemy and to be seen as such, but is Assad an ‘enemy’? No other western country would look at it in those terms. Ftr, Syria is in the middle of a civil war. An internal war.
Once again, it sounds like an America/n desperately keen to be involved where it has no business and very little power. On the other side of the world. Again.
Well, good thing the U.S. is bombing ISIL and not Assad, right?
ETA: wait, I think that’s what you were complaining was so terrible.
Sorry, you’re losing coherence, IYO which of Assad and ISIS are “enemies” of the USA?
In the general term of “enemies,” I’d say both. But I don’t fall into the silly trap of thinking that that the enemy of my enemy is always my friend. Perhaps that’s where your pronouncements on the situation in Syria fall apart.