Jump to content

Middle East and North Africa 19


Eyron

Recommended Posts

It's been too long:

 

Yemen. Remember that little escapade? Saudi and UAE were going to have Hadi back in Sana'a by Ramadan. Six months later there's no end in sight, thousands are dead and the nation is on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe

 

Go Big or Go Home?: The Kremlin's Syrian Dilemma - a good analysis of why Russia's recent moves to shore up the Assad regime might be about its relationship with Iran more than anything else.

 

A bunch of Western governments seem to regard the refugee crisis as a good headline for kicking off their own boutique airstrikes against ISIS

 

defence analysts at CENTCOM claim the upper echelons have been scrubbing their reports to paint a rosier picture of the fight against ISIS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask, why does the USA have any skin in the game of the Syrian Civil war?

 

Why are we backing Assad's overthrow? Him being a "brutal dictator" doesn't really cut it.

 

I thought the democrats would have learned their lesson after the Iraq war. Removing a brutal (if fairly secular) dictator can sometime unleash chaos, in a very unstable part of the world.

 

Judging from the Obama positions on Qadaffi and Assad, the dems clearly haven't learned their lesson.

 

Assad may be repellent, but at least his country gave women some rights and autonomy, and protected Christians, Shias, and other religious minorities. Please, Idl ike someone to tell me why his removal woudl be a good thing, and why his removal will not mean that Syria becomes ISIS land.

 

Further, we know Assad has WMD. If he shoudl fall and his sarin/nerve gas stocks get in ISIS' hands, I doubt it woudl end well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, the Assad regime is both pro Russian and pro Iranian,(i.e not pals with NATO) and Syria's geographical location make it an important area to control in the great game between Russia and the West for control of gas and oil supplies to Europe

 

Assads supporters are the religious minorities who would be exterminated given a Sunni victory, so its unlikely they'll capitulate, Russia and Iran also wont let that happen since the former relies on Assads government to host their only naval base in the Med, and thelatter is a Shia country and thus don't want a radically violent Sunni state on their borders to have anything along the lines of free time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, the Assad regime is both pro Russian and pro Iranian,(i.e not pals with NATO) and Syria's geographical location make it an important area to control in the great game between Russia and the West for control of gas and oil supplies to Europe

 

Assads supporters are the religious minorities who would be exterminated given a Sunni victory, so its unlikely they'll capitulate, Russia and Iran also wont let that happen since the former relies on Assads government to host their only naval base in the Med, and thelatter is a Shia country and thus don't want a radically violent Sunni state on their borders to have anything along the lines of free time 

 

I may be condemned for this, but I am sort of rooting for Assad to win at this point.

 

Things were repressive in Syria when he controlled all of it, but the mass exodus of Syrian refugees, relgiious fundamentalism and potential genocide of minorities were not a problem when he had more power.

 

I suppose the US backed rebels may mean well, but too many of them likely are extremists themselves. Even if not I don't see how they make Syria a stable, functioning society.

 

I do think Putin may have decided he is going to defeat ISIS there once and for all. So strange.. I think Russia has the better idea over there than USA does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really must love the Kims in North Korea then?

 

Alternative to Kims would likely be a democracy. Alternative to Assad? Most likely ISIS or chaos. You don't even need to go too far to see the results of victory by Western backed rebels over secular autocracy - Libya is a good recent example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask, why does the USA have any skin in the game of the Syrian Civil war?

 

Why are we backing Assad's overthrow?

Because there is no way to stop backing it without losing face. Getting rid of him seemed like a good idea back in 2011 -- he's an ally of both Russia and Iran, the crackdown on the spring protests was pretty brutal and it was possible to sell a democratic post-Assad Syria as plausible. Today, it's completely obvious that the only meaningful alternative to Assad is the IS & Co., but after four years of demonizing Assad and providing materiel to "the rebels" (much of which is now in the hands of the IS), we can't just say "Sorry, Vlad, you were right, he is the lesser evil" without looking like morons. Our leaders have miscalculated in a big way and they don't really have a way out unless the IS somehow falls apart (whence the cooking of the intelligence reports at CENTCOM).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the truth is Syria fell apart in large part on it's own and mostly with support from it's neighbours. So unless you wanted the US to help Assad crack down on his own people, there's nothing to apologize for and no reason to admit Putin was right about ... what exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been too long:

 

Yemen. Remember that little escapade? Saudi and UAE were going to have Hadi back in Sana'a by Ramadan. Six months later there's no end in sight, thousands are dead and the nation is on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe

 

Go Big or Go Home?: The Kremlin's Syrian Dilemma - a good analysis of why Russia's recent moves to shore up the Assad regime might be about its relationship with Iran more than anything else.

 

A bunch of Western governments seem to regard the refugee crisis as a good headline for kicking off their own boutique airstrikes against ISIS

 

defence analysts at CENTCOM claim the upper echelons have been scrubbing their reports to paint a rosier picture of the fight against ISIS

1. The best thing I can figure about Yemen is that there always seems to be some sort of war going on there and this seems to be a continuation of that rather than a Sunni/Shitte thing. Also Yemen is in a lot of trouble they need a good government and peace which seems highly unlikely and in the long term the results could be catastrophic. 

 

2. I agree with the article more or less, Iran is about to be flush with cash, they need Russian weaponry for the Syrians but for a number of political reasons it would create diffuculties if the Russians transferred them directly to the Syrians. So by having the Russians come in on the level that they are makes sense. 

 

3. The Western campaign against ISIS is almost a joke. If you consider them to be a real threat then that would seem to dictate that if you are going to take military action against them that it would actually be effective. You can argue that the air strikes will keep ISIS contained until the arab forces can build up their ground troops but I have a lot of doubts at this point. The Syrians and Hezbollah are all ready doing every thing that they can in Syria. The pro government forces in Iraq don't seem terribly martial, they can hold Bagdhad and the Shitte areas in the South, I think but I'm not sure that they can take back the ISIS areas. The Kurds are the most effective force in the area but for political reasons they are not being given the arms they need to really go on a broad offensive. IMO I think a political solution is bullshit because I can't see ISIS or the al Nusra front sitting at the table and making a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a moronic thing to say because the regime actively fostered a greater evil with just that expectation.

I suspect they did help a little bit, but it was never intended to get as powerful as it is now. What does that change though? However it got there, the greater evil is present now and the question is what to do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A destablised Syria and Iraq also helps out Israel, which would be reason enough for the US to get involved. The UN watchers report medical assistance and unidentified exchanges between representatives of them and ISIS. Oded Yinon had a policy paper about destabilising Iraq and Syria back in the 80's i believe.

 

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPlan_Yinon&edit-text=&act=url

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect they did help a little bit, but it was never intended to get as powerful as it is now. What does that change though? However it got there, the greater evil is present now and the question is what to do about it.

So the lesser evil only actively enabled the greater evil a little bit, and didn’t think it would spin out of control. That changes everything. They now sound like reliable and effective forces for a peaceful resolution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the lesser evil only actively enabled the greater evil a little bit, and didn’t think it would spin out of control. That changes everything. They now sound like reliable and effective forces for a peaceful resolution.

You sound like there would be an army of archangels waiting just to be called to bring peace and harmony.

You know what the concept of lesser evil is? It is LESSER EVIL. The lesser evil does not qualify as good or pure or whatever. Thats the whole point. It is the believed least bad option. And yeah, secular dictator lesser evil to fundamentalist terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sound like there would be an army of archangels waiting just to be called to bring peace and harmony.

You know what the concept of lesser evil is? It is LESSER EVIL. The lesser evil does not qualify as good or pure or whatever. Thats the whole point. It is the believed least bad option. And yeah, secular dictator lesser evil to fundamentalist terrorist.

 

But what if the lesser evil (secular dictator) inhibits the growth of the good (democracy) by propping up the bigger evil (fundamentalist religion)? If a dictator is ultimately toppled, I'd like the strongest alternative to him to be a democratic movement, not a radical religious group. So why should we support dictatorships that foster extremist groups over those who work towards democratization? Why not tie support beyond the most basic "We're not embargoing you" to steps towards democratization?

 

Or, alternatively, do you think people should not be able to decide about their government themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But what if the lesser evil (secular dictator) inhibits the growth of the good (democracy) by propping up the bigger evil (fundamentalist religion)? If a dictator is ultimately toppled, I'd like the strongest alternative to him to be a democratic movement, not a radical religious group. So why should we support dictatorships that foster extremist groups over those who work towards democratization? Why not tie support beyond the most basic "We're not embargoing you" to steps towards democratization?

 

Or, alternatively, do you think people should not be able to decide about their government themselves?

There it is again, the believe in the devine intervention. Those things are rare.

Yes I think they should, but how does this mean that we should give them weapons to do so?

It is the stupid activism which hopes for the best and does not give shit about what actually happens. Welcome to the Iraq war. Could it have gone into another direction? Yes, maybe. But it would have taken specific and costly action. (For example a lot more troops, pressure on sectarian politican and os on...)

 

So I think you should thinkg about a humanitarian zone probably doable if you arm the kurds they have a steady organisation and hold territory. And if the russians want to go in and micromanage the situaiton, let them. Because I do not see US or EU boots on the ground. So if Putin wants to fix that for us, why should we stop him. He wants to go back to the status quo, thats ok I guess, better than what is happening right now by a long shot.

 

Like with the Iran deal: Whats the alternative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if we assume the alternative will at some point become the new dominant group (which is... well, at least not all that unlikely) shouldn't we encourage the creation of better alternatives, instead of the strengthening of the worst possible alternatives? Do we have to support the "lesser evil" no matter what, even in the face of 

 

Look, I'm not supporting military intervention, so the Iraq war isn't really something you might lay at my door. All I'm saying is that we should be more discriminate in who we actively support instead of just tolerating them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



You sound like there would be an army of archangels waiting just to be called to bring peace and harmony.
You know what the concept of lesser evil is? It is LESSER EVIL. The lesser evil does not qualify as good or pure or whatever. Thats the whole point. It is the believed least bad option. And yeah, secular dictator lesser evil to fundamentalist terrorist.


Perhaps, in the light of the fact that the lesser evil willingly enabled the greater evil so it could better appear the lesser evil this distinction doesn't have the weight some people are giving it. Despite the Assad regime's rhetoric it, like many other Middle Eastern secular dictatorships, has a history of cynical collaborations with Islamist terror groups to further its own ends.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...