War in Syria / Yemen

[Rasp]

Rasp, you have not really addressed my argument reg. the false choice between Assad-like dictators and terrorists (for that matter, I would say that Assad is a state terrorist). You have largely just repeated your assertion, while challenging me to come up with an alternate plan. Nor did you provide evidence for your assertion that nearly all of the weaponry given to the rebels has fallen into the wrong hands.

As for what sort of plan I would use- I am not a military strategist, but I would think that any effort should ideally be made by an international coalition, with a commitment to a long-term rebuilding of Syria's infrastructure, with a plan for a transitional government that is neither Assad-like nor Islamist radicals, and only after a deal had been made with Russia to ensure that they we would not be blundering into World War III. I have absolutely no faith in Trump to do any of these things, and thus oppose the current course of action on practical grounds.

As for the rest of your post, the 2016 election, and your obsessive and single-minded hatred for (your straw man caricature of) the Democratic Party are not the topic of this thread, and I do not intend to be side-tracked. However, for the sake of accuracy, I will note that your implication that I am friendly to the Democratic establishment is oversimplified at best.

What do you want me to say that Assad is good? he's not there is just nothing we can do about it - the idea of nation building even with the backing of the international community HAS not worked in the past didn't work in Iraq. Building a transitional goverment sounds good on paper but the even the ambient instability of the region makes that next to impossible - and that's BEFORE you get to the Russians propping up the goverment. There is NOTHING we can do about Assad right now and attempting to do so is foolish...

I have a friend - smartest woman I ever met - Iraqi war vet - and well versed in this exact type of policy she's way more well read on these topics than I could ever be - and she tells me this is a horrific mistake and we're only shooting ourselves in the foot. That all these bombings are going is getting civilians caught in the crossfire and creating new enemies to fight - which is exactly what the military industrial complex wants - a war without end.

I really don't get what people want with regards to Syria anymore. Assad uses chemical weapons and everyone freaks out, and then Trump blows up a Syrian air force base in response and people start claiming that it's WWIII. I really hate to be defending or agreeing with Trump in any way, but Assad has got to go. He's proven on numerous occasions that he's criminal and illegitimate.

My issue is there hasn't been a proper investigation into it yet - this is starting to sound like a "WMD" situation - a war started with bad intel on a nation that may have had nothing to do with it. Neocons look for any excuse to go in doesn't matter if it's remotely true or not - it's the Iraq war all over again only this time the target has the backing of another superpower. If you ask me the pretense of taking out Assad is really just a smokescreen for a cold war-esque proxy battle with Russia because much like that war we cant afford to fight each other directly. It's right out of the Neocon handbook and people are eating it up.

These are the same people who are driving people to starvation in Yemen with the blockade. I don't always agree with Ron Paul but he's right in pointing out our previous interventions did not make us - or the region any safer. there aren't going to be any LESS terrorists so long as innocent civilians are caught up in the crossfire and bolster the terrorists recruiting operations and any areas of stability are taken apart and thrown into chaos.

My friend just contacted me - seems the air field that was bombed was built and supplied but the Russians - that there also might have been Russian personnel. This is no war against Assad - it's a proxy war against Russia....

Am I the only one with no interest in rehashing the cold war?

We learned nothing from Iraq we learned nothing in over a decade and a half of constant war. we're just gonna keep doing this forever.... If we had any interest in taking out Brutal dictators we've have overthrown the Saudis long ago - but their horrific civil rights record goes ignored because they're our "allies" and it doesn't matter if our allies are setting up an economic blockade that has pushed a country to the brink of famine. It doesn't matter how many civilians our allies kill it doesn't matter how many civilians WE kill - because we're the "good guys" right? War crimes can only be committed by the "bad guys".

[Admiral X]

The thing is, what TRR is talking about sounds a lot like what was tried in Iraq. I don't really think we should be in the business of nation-building. And as an added complication, I'm pretty sure Russia considers Assad an ally, and so any action there involving boots on the groud will probably draw us into a war with them.

[Durandal_1707]

Yeah, Assad's a giant dick, and pretty much no one, I suspect, would mourn him if he were to suddenly disappear. But as shitty as he is, we've kind of proven in recent decades that our particular method of removing dictators doesn't work.

[The Romulan Republic]

I may be wrong, but its honestly hard to see how, short of a war with Russia, the situation in Syria could get much worse. The country is in ruins, hundreds of thousands are dead, millions are refugees, the international law against the use of chemical weapons has been horrifically violated repeatedly, the war and its effects have spilled over in potentially disastrous ways into other countries (including American allies) on multiple occasions, and their is a real risk of it becoming a full-blown regional or even world war.

Morally, I'd say deposing Assad by force, if it can be feasibly done, is absolutely justified- I don't think their has been a more just cause for America to go to war since Afghanistan 2001, if not World War II. Nor do I accept that because some recent military efforts have failed, it can therefore be taken as self-evident that all such future campaigns will inevitably fail too- that strikes me as more a position founded on political ideology rather than evidence.

That said, as long as their is a risk of war with Russia, we must tread very, very carefully. And Trump is certainly not the man for the job when the stakes are this high and the situation this complex. Nor does this strike seem carefully considered, considering that the Administration reversed its position almost overnight. No, this strikes me as more of a political stunt, and whatever the motives, I oppose it on practical grounds, even though I would consider the deposition of Assad likely theoretically justifiable on moral grounds.

Edit: Of course, Trump hasn't actually moved to invade Syria or depose Assad yet. It may be (we can hope) that this is simply a very ill-considered stunt, not a lasting commitment to deposing Assad.

[Rasp]

Nor do I accept that because some recent military efforts have failed, it can therefore be taken as self-evident that all such future campaigns will inevitably fail too- that strikes me as more a position founded on political ideology rather than evidence.

The idea of nation building is not a question of military arms is what they attempt to do after they conflict has mostly ended - finding a way to make the nation functional again under a new goverment and not allowing it to slip into anarchy - due to the high number of divided factions in any given region this is nearly impossible - it's hubris to think an outside force like any of the western powers combined could bridge the necessary divides - especially as we've spend the last decade and a half dropping bombs on civilian targets. Those on the ground have no reason not to actively resist us and anything we try to accomplish. peace in the middle east will have to come from the middle east - foreign interlopers will not avail.

They hate us - they don't want our help. Those under Assads dubious protection don't want him overthrown because the alternative is worse and they know it. I remember hearing an interview with a journalist from a small outlet who managed to slip away from her goverment attache in Syria briefly to take with people more candidly - many don't like Assad but at least he's not imposing Sharia.

https://youtu.be/8hnqDmWbhkc?t=33m

[Admiral X]

Yeah, I doubt many of the Syrians would be willing to work with us in rebuilding their nation after we finish blowing it to smithereens. This isn't like WWII with Germany where you had a greater threat looming that made working with the US/UK/France alliance. Again, this would be more like Iraq, where, if anything, any government we help to set up would be viewed as a puppet and the people within it as collaborators. I feel for them and the shit they're going through and all, but we've been there and done that, only instead of a crummy t-shirt all we have are quite a few thousand casualties to show for it. And again, at least with Iraq, we didn't have to worry about Russia lending them a hand beyond selling them equipment.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nor do I accept that because some recent military efforts have failed, it can therefore be taken as self-evident that all such future campaigns will inevitably fail too- that strikes me as more a position founded on political ideology rather than evidence.

The idea of nation building is not a question of military arms is what they attempt to do after they conflict has mostly ended - finding a way to make the nation functional again under a new goverment and not allowing it to slip into anarchy - due to the high number of divided factions in any given region this is nearly impossible - it's hubris to think an outside force like any of the western powers combined could bridge the necessary divides - especially as we've spend the last decade and a half dropping bombs on civilian targets. Those on the ground have no reason not to actively resist us and anything we try to accomplish. peace in the middle east will have to come from the middle east - foreign interlopers will not avail.

Their are historical examples of successful occupations/nation-building efforts, by America within the last century, no less. The end of WWII comes to mind.

So I cannot help but think that the failures in the Middle East are a result of incompetence, not the inherent futility of any foreign occupation. Its been previously reported that the numbers of troops committed to Iraq/Afghanistan were insufficient, and its no secret that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was done with great overconfidence and lack of adequate post-war planning.

They hate us - they don't want our help.

Be very, very careful of treating all inhabitants of a region as homogenous in their views and values. Even if done with anti-colonialist/anti-imperialist intentions, to do so is prejudice, plain and simple.

Especially because its treating "hatred of Americans" as an innate Muslim/Middle Eastern trait, which really isn't helpful.

Those under Assads dubious protection don't want him overthrown because the alternative is worse and they know it.

And that's why so many of them rebelled against him, I suppose?

I remember hearing an interview with a journalist from a small outlet who managed to slip away from her goverment attache in Syria briefly to take with people more candidly - many don't like Assad but at least he's not imposing Sharia.

https://youtu.be/8hnqDmWbhkc?t=33m

Oh, I don't doubt many of them do support Assad. But many also don't. And frankly... I'm honestly not sure Assad is better than Sharia at this point. Does it really matter terribly much why people are being mass-tortured and killed? Either way, they're still being mass-tortured and killed.

Plus, again, I don't think little enough of the Syrian people to think that Dash-style Sharia or Assad are the only two options for government that their society is capable of producing. Maybe those are the main factions now, if you don't count the Kurds (and it seems nobody does count the Kurds any more), but their was a more moderate rebel presence once, and if they had received more support early on, perhaps things would be different now.

Again, I don't support Trump's strike, and I don't support the US deposing Assad by force. However, I am tired of these simplistic analyses where if you're against war, you have to pretend like Assad is a good option, or at least the "lesser of two evils."

[Rasp]

They hate us - they don't want our help.

Be very, very careful of treating all inhabitants of a region as homogenous in their views and values. Even if done with anti-colonialist/anti-imperialist intentions, to do so is prejudice, plain and simple.

Especially because its treating "hatred of Americans" as an innate Muslim/Middle Eastern trait, which really isn't helpful.

This isn't a race or religion thing - stop trying to make it one - this is a - we've spent the last decade and a half dropping bombs on their friends and families thing. I don't think any amount of planning can overcome that kind of justified malice. Those in the middle east have good substantive reasons to hate what we've done over there that has nothing to do with race or religion so do this whole conversation a favor and stow the PC outrage.

Let the people under Assads rule make the decision if it's better or worse that the rebels - from everything I've heard they'd prefer if Assad won. it's THEIR lives that will be affected the most by the choice. I'm not going to pretend Assad is a good choice but those on the ground seem to think he's the lesser of two evils - and I'll take THEIR word for it over people who don't have to live with the consequences of toppling the goverment. End of story.

I understand the anger of wanting to do something to help them but overthrowing Assad right now with Al qaeda linked rebels will not help anyone if anything it will get a shitton more people killed and throw the area even more into chaos. Yes there is hope for a more democratic system in Syria but they have the existential threat of the Al qaeda aligned rebel groups to destroy first. I'm not saying they cant do better - I'm saying they can deal with Assad themselves after they push Al qaeda out and we should not get involved outside of humanitarian aide. No funding of rebels - no weapons - no intel - no air support - no drones - white heilos only.

[The Romulan Republic]

They hate us - they don't want our help.

Be very, very careful of treating all inhabitants of a region as homogenous in their views and values. Even if done with anti-colonialist/anti-imperialist intentions, to do so is prejudice, plain and simple.

Especially because its treating "hatred of Americans" as an innate Muslim/Middle Eastern trait, which really isn't helpful.

This isn't a race or religion thing - stop trying to make it one - this is a - we've spent the last decade and a half dropping bombs on their friends and families thing. I don't think any amount of planning can overcome that kind of justified malice. Those in the middle east have good substantive reasons to hate what we've done over there that has nothing to do with race or religion so do this whole conversation a favor and stow the PC outrage.

You are the one who decided to, and continues to, ascribe a single world view to everyone in the Middle East. I don't think you intend prejudice, but I think you're painting a lot of people with a very broad brush because it bolsters your argument to do so.

Let the people under Assads rule make the decision if it's better or worse that the rebels - from everything I've heard they'd prefer if Assad won. it's THEIR lives that will be affected the most by the choice. I'm not going to pretend Assad is a good choice but those on the ground seem to think he's the lesser of two evils - and I'll take THEIR word for it over people who don't have to live with the consequences of toppling the goverment. End of story.

Some do, some don't. Again, I point you to the large numbers who have revolted against Assad.

And frankly, it stopped being just the Syrian people's business the first time the war spilled over national boundaries on a large scale. Which it has, repeatedly.

I understand the anger of wanting to do something to help them but overthrowing Assad right now with Al qaeda linked rebels will not help anyone if anything it will get a shitton more people killed and throw the area even more into chaos. Yes there is hope for a more democratic system in Syria but they have the existential threat of the Al qaeda aligned rebel groups to destroy first. I'm not saying they cant do better - I'm saying they can deal with Assad themselves after they push Al qaeda out and we should not get involved outside of humanitarian aide. No funding of rebels - no weapons - no intel - no air support - no drones - white heilos only.

First, not all the rebels are Al Qaeda-linked, though their is admittedly difficulty in determining who is who.

Secondly, you appear to be arguing as though you think I am advocating war with Syria. I am not. I have stated repeatedly that I am not. It is simply that my reasons are different from yours', and I consider some of your reasoning flawed.

I do agree that we should contribute humanitarian aid. Indeed, any effort to replace Assad would have to be accompanied by massive aid and assistance in rebuilding Syria's infrastructure to be likely to succeed.

[Bernkastel]

This isn't a race or religion thing - stop trying to make it one - this is a - we've spent the last decade and a half dropping bombs on their friends and families thing. I don't think any amount of planning can overcome that kind of justified malice. Those in the middle east have good substantive reasons to hate what we've done over there that has nothing to do with race or religion so do this whole conversation a favor and stow the PC outrage.

Certainly.

Even if you are optimistic and assume, in spite of the actions of the US and others, that those in the ME looking at our actions are willing to assume we have the best of intentions, in spite of evidence to the contrary and enough deaths to make them disinclined to do so, they'd still have plenty of reason to be weary. The track record of the US is still one that suggests a willingness to do things that cause death and suffering for the sake of helping them, even when there is ample evidence that what's being done is not helping or even making things worse.

Now, that being quite generous. After all, there is plenty of evidence that the US and it's allies do not have the interests of Syrians in mind. Certainly, the fact that the current President is a man who once said "I will look Syrian kids in the eye and say "Go Home"" is not something that says that the US government wants to help Syrians.

Also, Romulan Republic, in regards to how it could get worse in Syria, you should probably consider the possibility that various radical rebel groups lack the resources to both fight Assad and kill groups they hate, like moderates and each other, so are prioritising the fight with Assad. Plus, moderate rebels are also fighting alongside the radicals and have been known to give them some of the supplies given to them by the west in the past. This is another factor that would encourage a certain pragmatism by radicals in regards to the moderates, a factor that would be removed once Assad is gone. There's also issues in regards to how moderate the moderate rebel groups really are. Certainly, I've yet to see any evidence that they have enough strength and support to rule Syria, if Assad was gone. If anything, I expect them to be swiftly destroyed by the radical groups once that happened, unless the US committed itself to fighting for those groups.