Syria conflict

[Badsmerf]

What a terrible situation. Any thoughts on this?

[DaveW]

 

What a terrible situation. Any thoughts on this?

 Tragic, what also is tragic is how basically every other country close to them with the exception of Germany are treating the refugees like human garbage, often times spouting out nonsensical "What if they have ISIS with them!" fears to cover up their deplorable xenophobia.

 

I think the US should bring in a significant amount of the refugees, it was our actions in Iraq that basically set up the current instability across the entire region and allowed ISIS to form.

 

The John Oliver segment is a good watch if you haven't seen it yet.

[TheLeviathan]

Russia is complicating it even further, unsurprisingly.

[Mike Sixel]

Hundreds or more years of brain washing and hatred......a more intractable problem even than US guns probably.

 

The sad part, imo, is the response of many "we just don't have enough money to help these children".....as if there isn't more than enough money in the US to help every one of the.

 

If it was just a bunch of adults that hate each other killing themselves, I'd almost just let them.....but that's not what it is.

[twinsnorth49]

Politics and more politics. If only it were actually about the people.

[Badsmerf]

I also could care less about the people doing the killing. The innocent people and lives that are being ruined is beyond comprehension.

 

The problem is, that the situation is so complicated. I don't think anyone wants Assad to be in power,but the Russians. The fact the US has aided the rebels, Russia is aiding Assad, and isis are a bunch of **** heads... how do you save the refugees? If Russia and the US have any altercations this could get ugly.

 

Further, how do you stabilize a region that is so violent? I just wish peace was a more attractive option to people.

[TheLeviathan]

It is a nexus of issues.  Russian/American competitions for who swings a bigger stick, the region as a whole is a cluster of nonsense, religion is at the very center of it, and their are so many innocents suffering as a result.

 

This is one of those situations that tugs at you to ignore the rational voice that says "You have to let them figure it out", because without intervention there will be a host of casualties.  There may be either way, I don't know.

[drjim]

 

It is a nexus of issues.  Russian/American competitions for who swings a bigger stick, the region as a whole is a cluster of nonsense, religion is at the very center of it, and their are so many innocents suffering as a result.

 

This is one of those situations that tugs at you to ignore the rational voice that says "You have to let them figure it out", because without intervention there will be a host of casualties.  There may be either way, I don't know.

 

It isn't a competition between US and Russia. Russia will drop a handful of outdated bombs (that aren't guided) in a last ditch effort to prop up Assad. US runs circles around that.

 

The issue, in my mind, is that it is a threeway between Assad, al Qaeda and ISIS. Hard to know who to support in that scenario, other than the refugees caught in the middle. And by cold, realist calculus, with Iran and Russia throwing their more limited resources into the quagmire, strategically the best outcome is to keep letting them fight.

 

A reckoning has been coming for this region for over a century. Strongmen as stabilizers was bound not to last.

[TheLeviathan]

Russia complicates things when they are attacking people we are backing. It just gets into petty **** that adds another layer to it.

[twinsnorth49]

 

It isn't a competition between US and Russia. Russia will drop a handful of outdated bombs (that aren't guided) in a last ditch effort to prop up Assad. US runs circles around that.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this? What exactly are you referring to? The only part I can make sense of is propping up Assad..

[ashbury]

Further, how do you stabilize a region that is so violent?

With secular dictators.

 

I don't like that answer. I hate that answer. But, for that particular region, it was the height of navel-gazing for the Neocons in the early 2000's (OK, and well before) to believe that liberal democracy would take root by "just" toppling one or more dictators and then giving them some support.

 

While I'm generally an Obama supporter (if not apologist ) his adherence to part of the necon orthodoxy in the region is likely to turn out to be the worst mark against his 8 year administration. And Syria itself will be the worst of all - the half-measures taken to oust Assad have instead resulted in the slaughter of all the moderate political/military types and the exodus (or also slaughter) of all the moderate citizenry.

 

If stability isn't your #1 concern, maybe my answer is different. But 15 years of experience in regime-change is telling us something here.

[ashbury]

Russia will drop a handful of outdated bombs

I guess you missed the news.

 

“In accordance with the decision by Supreme Commander of Russian Armed Forces Vladimir Putin, aircraft from the Russian Aerospace Force began today an operation which involves precision airstrikes on Islamic State land-based targets in Syria,” Russian defense ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov confirmed.

 

Looks like we've found our Russian version of Baghdad Bob.

 

http://images.scribblelive.com/2015/7/8/648f87d8-344d-4c8e-81b4-6f83b9a543e1_300.jpg

[drjim]

I'm not sure what you mean by this? What exactly are you referring to? The only part I can make sense of is propping up Assad..

They are trying to save Assad who was likely about to fall. But the reality is they don't have the infrastructure or technology to maintain bombing runs for an extended run.

 

The US and Russia aren't really competing in Syria. We are supporting the rebels a little but are far from committed to seeing that through. Out main concern, as it should be, is protecting the Kurds and preventing the conflict from spilling too much into friendly governments.

 

I think the reality we face is that obviously no one wants ISIS, we don't especially want Assad and other countries are much more dedicated to keeping him around (Russia, Iran) and we can't (and shouldn't) trust the rebels.

 

My main take is the US is involved to keep the conflict localized, away from our allies and to prevent ISIS from really emerging. Outside of that we probably don't need a specific outcome for Assad. Other countries are much more motivated.

[twinsnorth49]

 

They are trying to save Assad who was likely about to fall. But the reality is they don't have the infrastructure or technology to maintain bombing runs for an extended run.

The US and Russia aren't really competing in Syria. We are supporting the rebels a little but are far from committed to seeing that through. Out main concern, as it should be, is protecting the Kurds and preventing the conflict from spilling too much into friendly governments.

I think the reality we face is that obviously no one wants ISIS, we don't especially want Assad and other countries are much more dedicated to keeping him around (Russia, Iran) and we can't (and shouldn't) trust the rebels.

My main take is the US is involved to keep the conflict localized, away from our allies and to prevent ISIS from really emerging. Outside of that we probably don't need a specific outcome for Assad. Other countries are much more motivated.

What the US should be doing is letting Putin further his fight with ISIS, which he has been preparing to do for quite some time, and is more than capable of for an extended period. It allows the US to stay out of the country while having a major player hamper the movements of ISIS. If Russia can be successful in driving them out of the country then it significantly improves the situation with migration. Assad is not the major threat in Syria, outside of his own borders.

[drjim]

 

What the US should be doing is letting Putin further his fight with ISIS, which he has been preparing to do for quite some time, and is more than capable of for an extended period. It allows the US to stay out of the country while having a major player hamper the movements of ISIS. If Russia can be successful in driving them out of the country then it significantly improves the situation with migration. Assad is not the major threat in Syria, outside of his own borders.

 

Any fight by Putin against ISIS would probably be an accident. He is going after the rebels that are the bigger immediate threat to Assad. Either way this doesn't end well for Russia. Intervention may keep Assad in power a little longer but he is ultimately doomed. It drains resources that they don't have and it is going to lead to blowback in the south of the country in the near future.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Any fight by Putin against ISIS would probably be an accident. He is going after the rebels that are the bigger immediate threat to Assad. Either way this doesn't end well for Russia. Intervention may keep Assad in power a little longer but he is ultimately doomed. It drains resources that they don't have and it is going to lead to blowback in the south of the country in the near future.

No, it wouldn't by any means be an accident, a cover maybe but not an accident. The Russian military buildup in the region is beyond US control, their main goal is to keep Assad in power and they have more than the means to do so. I'm not sure what leverage the US has, they are pretty much resigned to coordinating air strikes with the Russians in the North and little else.

 

A little investigation into the Russian buildup in Latakia is about all anyone needs to know.

[Mike Sixel]

Isn't this what we should want, other countries stepping up to fight ISIL/ISIS? I for one, if this is what Russia is doing, endorse their decision to engage ISIS/ISIL.

[ashbury]

Isn't this what we should want, other countries stepping up to fight ISIL/ISIS? I for one, if this is what Russia is doing, endorse their decision to engage ISIS/ISIL.

The enemy of my enemy may also be my enemy.

 

Fighting ISIS looks like about 4th on Putin's list of priorities in that country.

1. prop up Assad.
2. wipe out the American led factions in particular.
3. establish further precedent that this corner of the world is their sphere of influence (or, said differently, tug at Uncle Sam's beard a little bit).
4. oh, and, yeah, Islamic extremism, he doesn't like that very much, either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not super paranoid about the return of the Soviet Empire or anything. And I don't know if any of these supposed goals are attainable for him.

 

I just think we should see things through Putin's eyes to have some guess about what Putin is doing.

[TheLeviathan]

Right, as long as Putin is in charge, his involvement should always be seen as problematic at best.

[Badsmerf]

Putin got his pee pee slapped by the head of nato yesterday. He used some pretty stern words when addressing Russian involvement in Syria. They keep it up and I could see sanctions being placed on them. That is one thing Russia does not need.

[twinsnorth49]

There is no doubt that Putin's end goal is to reinforce his firm  stronghold in that part of the Middle East and maintain his country's interests that come from that region. Of course propping up Assad is his main priority, but the presence of ISIS disrupts that considerably, it also is representing an increasing problem for him in the Caucuses.

 

It's not Islamic extremism he's concerned about, ISIS is  just another destabilizing threat he needs to worry about in trying to control the region. The migration crisis is not good for Russia either.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Putin got his pee pee slapped by the head of nato yesterday. He used some pretty stern words when addressing Russian involvement in Syria. They keep it up and I could see sanctions being placed on them. That is one thing Russia does not need.

Laughable, in fact that was probably Putin's reaction. He's as concerned about sanctions as he was when they threatened the same thing over Ukraine. He doesn't fear sanctions, or NATO,or all of Europe for that matter.

[ashbury]

Laughable, in fact that was probably Putin's reaction. He's as concerned about sanctions as he was when they threatened the same thing over Ukraine. He doesn't fear sanctions, or NATO,or all of Europe for that matter.

Perhaps, but you forgot about the Stern Words.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Perhaps, but you forgot about the Stern Words.

Whoops, you're right. I imagine this is what Putin is probably doing now.

 

 

 

[Badsmerf]

I don't think pissing of the rest of the world is going to get putin where he wants to go. If I had to pick an a region to be allied with, the middle east would be last on my list.

[twinsnorth49]

I really don't think Putin's m.o, is caring whether he pisses people off, especially ones who really aren't going to do much about it. From a geopolitical perspective it makes perfect sense for Putin to maintain his ties with Syria and remain strong in the region, especially if he wants to further Russia's influence there, which he does.

 

He also has no interest in the US extending it's reach across the globe, just like he didn't in Ukraine. Putin has been determined for years to restore Russia's strength globally and provide a counter balance to the US. The Middle East is just another area that presents those opportunities.

 

 

[drjim]

I've enjoyed reading various columnists on this issue. More or less agree the US has no real allies or interest in Syria, but huge differences in the motivation and possible benefit for Putin.

 

Outside of keeping Assad in power no one really knows, probably including Putin himself.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I've enjoyed reading various columnists on this issue. More or less agree the US has no real allies or interest in Syria, but huge differences in the motivation and possible benefit for Putin.

Outside of keeping Assad in power no one really knows, probably including Putin himself.

I don't really think the motivation and benefits are in question for Putin, the potential risk if he's unable to keep Assad in power could have considerable consequences for him though. My guess is that he feels the benefits outweigh the risks, especially as it pertains to keeping the US from pursuing further action.

[Willihammer]

 

Putin got his pee pee slapped by the head of nato yesterday. He used some pretty stern words when addressing Russian involvement in Syria. They keep it up and I could see sanctions being placed on them. That is one thing Russia does not need.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there are already outstanding EU/US sanctions from the Crimean annexation last year.

 

I don't know if most westerners appreciate the impact of sanctions since we've never lived under them. The Russian economy is in recession. Perhaps Russia's foreign policy is as simple as throwing sand into any western action to use them as bargaining chips in any new discussions about lifting existing sanctions or adding new ones.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but there are already outstanding EU/US sanctions from the Crimean annexation last year.

 

I don't know if most westerners appreciate the impact of sanctions since we've never lived under them. The Russian economy is in recession. Perhaps Russia's foreign policy is as simple as throwing sand into any western action to use them as bargaining chips in any new discussions about lifting existing sanctions or adding new ones.

I don't know if most Westerners really understand how Russians view things at all. These aren't choices for them, they are necessary moves to ensure their long term security.

 

How would Americans view it's government if they ceded to Russia's actions in Ukraine or simply allowed them to do whatever they chose in Syria without any objection or interference? I think it would be viewed with a certain sense of insecurity that a growing Russian presence could potentially be a threat.

 

Russia is not going to capitulate, it goes against everything they are trying to accomplish.