Obama's Syria Strategy No Match for Putin's

doubtingmerle said:

That's your policy? You hope that Assad wins?

How does "hope" end the turmoil? Isn't it going to take a little more than hope?

You said something about teaming up with those who would destroy ISIS. So that is your policy? Switch sides and team up with Assad? Because we are currently aiding those who are fighting Assad, the moderate rebels.

Click to expand...

The whole point is that we are at cross purposes.

-We claim to want to defeat Assad
-We claim to want to destroy ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliated groups in the area

However, the moderate rebels we assist will not separate from ISIS and Al Qaeda, because the moderate rebels need their help to defeat Assad.

We are already fighting on two sides of the battle. So Obama proposes eliminating ISIS by first containing them, then eventually eliminating them. Because if he eliminated them then they would not be attacking Assad still.

If you think that switching sides would not make sense, or would cause us to lose face, how much sense does it make to say we are fighting ISIS but, also fighting for the allies of ISIS?

But now that we are where we are, it is hard to see how, after years of encouraging moderate rebels, and giving them arms, we then turn and arm the Assad regime to wipe them out. If we do that, we lose all credibility in world affairs.

Click to expand...

Defeating Assad went out the window as soon as Russia became directly involved. If you want full out war with Russia, then you can continue pursuing the goal of getting rid of Assad.

Now the recent attempt at cooperation to wipe out ISIS and Al Qaeda appears to be hindered either by incompetence or lack of desire by both sides to work together. Had they gone on to work together they could have then attempted to make peace between the various rebel groups and Syrians. How that would work, I am not sure, but that was the theory any way--jointly defeat the terrorists, then broker a peace deal.

So despite the completely failed recent peace agreement, I think that is the only way forward is to try again. It would involve intelligence sharing, which so far has apparently been a hang-up.

RDKirk said:

Ultimately, however, the US must face the fact that the real enemy is Saudi Arabia.

Click to expand...

Which is why it is sad that the Senate failed to pass a resolution to block arms being sent to Saudi Arabia for their ongoing efforts in Yemen. We just keep wanting to arm everyone in the region, especially those supporting terrorists, or allied with terrorists. Then we claim we want to defeat terrorists.

Depending on which region we're in we support and fight against the same factions

tall73 said:

If you think that switching sides would not make sense, or would cause us to lose face, how much sense does it make to say we are fighting ISIS but, also fighting for the allies of ISIS?

Click to expand...

Understood. Syria is a mess, and there are no easy solutions.

Switching sides to support Assad and helping him kill the moderates that we are currently arming makes no sense to me.

And yes, continuing to support moderates who are all over the map in allegiance, and have little hope of creating a unified, peaceful state is a huge problem.

Now the recent attempt at cooperation to wipe out ISIS and Al Qaeda appears to be hindered either by incompetence or lack of desire by both sides to work together. Had they gone on to work together they could have then attempted to make peace between the various rebel groups and Syrians. How that would work, I am not sure, but that was the theory any way--jointly defeat the terrorists, then broker a peace deal.

So despite the completely failed recent peace agreement, I think that is the only way forward is to try again. It would involve intelligence sharing, which so far has apparently been a hang-up.

Click to expand...

Yes, ultimately we need peace and negotiations. We need all sides to cease fighting and come to the table. Then we need to broker a solution that leaves the area in peace and satisfies the most people. That may be a dream, but ultimately that is what is needed.

And if part of the solution is to allow parts of Eastern Syria to align with parts of Western Iraq in a new State of Iraq and Syria (SIS, perhaps), that may be fine, provided said SIS is peaceful with its neighbors, and does not support international terrorism. And the said SIS could even choose to be Islamic (ISIS) but it would be better, in my opinion, if it remained secular. (SSIS, perhaps?)

The problem with ISIS is that it supports international terrorism, and it is aggressive against its neighbors. The idea to unite parts of Syria and Iraq in a separate country is worth putting on the table. The idea of allowing Sunni Arabs in the area to unite as one new country in the midst of Shiite Arabs (Syria, parts of Iraq, Iran), is worth putting on the table.

tall73 said:

The whole point is that we are at cross purposes.

-We claim to want to defeat Assad
-We claim to want to destroy ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliated groups in the area

However, the moderate rebels we assist will not separate from ISIS and Al Qaeda, because the moderate rebels need their help to defeat Assad.

We are already fighting on two sides of the battle. So Obama proposes eliminating ISIS by first containing them, then eventually eliminating them. Because if he eliminated them then they would not be attacking Assad still.

If you think that switching sides would not make sense, or would cause us to lose face, how much sense does it make to say we are fighting ISIS but, also fighting for the allies of ISIS?

Click to expand...

The situation is far more complex than "two sides."

wing2000 said:

The situation is far more complex than "two sides."

Click to expand...

It's complicated.

doubtingmerle said:

And you would be able to pick out rebels who never behead Christians, who never kill civilians, who never give arms to people who favor ISIS? How would you do that?

Syria is a hopelessly fractured country with many different groups fighting each other. You can never be sure who you are dealing with, and what they will do with the arms you give them.

Interestingly you support Putin's plan, but he supports the ruthless Assad regime in their attacks against moderates. Is that what you want? Do you want Assad to continue his attack on moderates?

Click to expand...

The only thing the groups all seem to have in common is that they are all Muslim!

Fancy that huh.

LivingWordUnity said:

It's the Islamists vs Assad's nationalist government.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. Syria doesn't fit neatly into a dichotomy.

TheQuietRiot said:

The only thing the groups all seem to have in common is that they are all Muslim!

Fancy that huh.

Click to expand...

And everyone in the IRA was a Christian. Category failures are fun!

LivingWordUnity said:

ISIS and the so-called "rebels" seek to turn Syria into a more Islamic government while Assad is more of a nationalist. Those are the facts.

Click to expand...

No. They're not. ISIS and "the rebels" are not interchangeable.

LivingWordUnity said:

Here's why I disagree with you (each of the following is linked to a news story):

Dec 30, 2012 - Syria rebels 'beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs' as fears grow over Islamist atrocities
Jul 01, 2013 - Catholic Leaders Decry U.S. Arms to Syrian Rebels
Aug 24, 2013 - Christians massacred by ‘Free’ Syrian Army terrorists rebels
Sep 14, 2014 - ISIS Strikes Deal With 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels
Sep 18, 2014 - Obama signs bill to arm and train 'Syrian rebels'
Oct 21, 2014 - U.S. 'accidentally' delivered weapons to the Islamic State by airdrop
Sep 10, 2015 - Obama Administration Manipulates Intelligence on ISIS
Oct 02, 2015 - Syrian archbishop rips US support for Islamic rebels
Oct 07, 2015 - Syriac Catholic Church Patriarch decries US policy toward Syria
Feb 18, 2016 - Aleppo bishop says ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels are killing civilians

Click to expand...

Yeah, you need to stop looking for things you think confirm preexisting beliefs. These stories are all either about ISIS, what would become ISIS, or irrelevant. Even the bolded one doesn't say what you said it says.

Syria is not "Assad vs. ISIS", and it doesn't fit the Hollywood "good vs. evil" paradigm. No matter how much you wish it did.

LivingWordUnity said:

It's actually not complicated. If Assad loses then ISIS takes over. That's why I hope Assad wins.

Click to expand...

That's not even close to accurate. But who cares, right? It sounds good and makes for easy partisan sound bites.

LivingWordUnity said:

It's not complicated to those who know what's going on there.

Click to expand...

The people who know what's going on there are the ones saying it's complicated. The people trying to reduce it to a good vs. evil dichotomy have no idea, and don't care that they have no idea.

Armoured said:

Yeah, you need to stop looking for things you think confirm preexisting beliefs. These stories are all either about ISIS, what would become ISIS, or irrelevant. Even the bolded one doesn't say what you said it says.

Syria is not "Assad vs. ISIS", and it doesn't fit the Hollywood "good vs. evil" paradigm. No matter how much you wish it did.

Click to expand...

The first thing I noticed was the Syrian Army guy in the corner .