You still haven't coughed up any viable solutions that will permanently fix the situation, other than to cheerlead anything that will allow your favorite dictator to remain in power. What is your solution ?
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
You still haven't coughed up any viable solutions that will permanently fix the situation, other than to cheerlead anything that will allow your favorite dictator to remain in power. What is your solution ?
Non-sense. And I have said this before...
Taliban overrun Afghan city of Kunduz
The Taliban have overrun the northern Afghan city of Kunduz, taking control of most areas and freeing hundreds of prisoners from its jail.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34377565
... already. At least 'Maliki' lasted more than 3 years before these things started happening.
3 years after the US forces withdrew totally.
I'm still impressed though you're still persisting with the same non-sense.
Stop supporting the number 1 terrorist nation in the world and the root of the ideology of all those terrorist groups.
A solution, not feel good babble.
If anything you're making the case for more troops on the ground. In the case of Syria, you seem not so concerned about the Russians being there since it supports your sectarian dictatorship. Double standard ?
See Japan and West Germany in and post WWII, those are your full-hearted interventions.
Iraq was a shit-show, invaded for the wrong reasons (or no real reason), with false premises about the post-conflict and no realistic plan for it. It's all wrong, but might have still stood a chance with more troops from the start.
Assad is the root cause of this mess and for the gazillionth time, the healing of Syria starts with the death of Assad.
Tell that to his resident fans. They seem convinced getting rid of ISIS will somehow fix Syria.
It's unbelievable how people can support Assad, and I don't buy this shite argument / notion that he's the lesser evil. Body counts, rapes, war crimes, whatever metric you want to measure who is worse only one name comes out on top. FFS, Syrian posters in this very thread who are in the heart of the mess don't want him there but the resident Russian and Shia posters do. It's ridiculous.
Anyone know what the Israelis are doing about this? Who do they support, in what ways, who they fear most, etc.?
I think they'll be happy to see the conflict go on draining the resources of Assad, Iran and Hezbollah, as long as the jihadists on their border refrain from drawing them into the conflict. So far, that's what has happened, the rebel groups on the Golan front have avoided targeting the IDF, while the Israelis have launched a few strikes at weapons convoys bound for Hezbollah, who are as ever the actor they fear the most, as they appear to be the only Arab force in history with the ability to inflict proportionate retaliatory strikes on the IDF. Things would obviously change drastically if the Islamic State were to gain a foothold on the Golan.
That's your response ? Not particularly convincing.
What is your viable long term solution to the situation in Syria ?
US-trained Syria rebels gave ammo, equipment to Qaeda group
WASHINGTON: The Pentagon on Friday said a group of US-trained Syrian rebels had handed over ammunition and equipment to Al-Qaeda's affiliate in the country, the Al-Nusra Front, purportedly in exchange for safe passage.
The startling acknowledgement contrasted with earlier Pentagon denials of reports that some fighters had either defected or handed over gear.
"Unfortunately, we learned late today that the NSF (New Syrian Forces) unit now says it did in fact provide six pickup trucks and a portion of their ammunition to a suspected Al-Nusra Front (group)," Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said.
Colonel Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for Central Command (CENTCOM), which is overseeing efforts against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, said the fighters had handed over the gear in exchange for safe passage in the Al-Nusra operating area.
"If accurate, the report of NSF members providing equipment to Al-Nusra Front is very concerning and a violation of Syria train-and-equip program guidelines," Ryder said.
Ryder added that the pickup vehicles and ammunition represented about 25 percent of the equipment issued to the group by the US-led coalition.
"We are using all means at our disposal to look into what exactly happened and determine the appropriate response," Ryder said.
A defense official told AFP that according to the rebels, there had not been any defections, but he stressed: "We only know what they have told us."
The development is another embarrassing setback for the US effort to "train and equip" moderate Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State jihadists in Syria.
The $500-million program originally aimed to ready around 5,400 vetted fighters a year for three years but problems finding suitable candidates have seen only a fraction getting trained.
The first graduates, who made up a group of 54 fighters, were attacked by Al-Nusra in July and the Pentagon isn't sure what happened to them all. At least one was killed.
The second group, consisting of about 70 rebels, were sent back to Syria last weekend and reports began circulating on Twitter soon after that they had either defected or handed over equipment.
Last week, before the insertion of the new fighters, the US general overseeing efforts against IS drew disbelief from senior lawmakers when he told them only "four or five" US-trained rebels were on the ground fighting in Syria.
Unwilling to commit US ground troops in the region, the Obama administration in January launched the train-and-equip mission for Syrian opposition fighters as part of a broader push to work with locals there and in Iraq.
The program has faltered, with many would-be fighters failing the strict screening process. The troops are being trained as part of the US-led fight against Islamic State in the region.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...Qaeda-group-Official/articleshow/49115151.cms
WASHINGTON: The Pentagon on Friday said a group of US-trained Syrian rebels had handed over ammunition and equipment to Al-Qaeda's affiliate in the country, the Al-Nusra Front, purportedly in exchange for safe passage.
The startling acknowledgement contrasted with earlier Pentagon denials of reports that some fighters had either defected or handed over gear.
"Unfortunately, we learned late today that the NSF (New Syrian Forces) unit now says it did in fact provide six pickup trucks and a portion of their ammunition to a suspected Al-Nusra Front (group)," Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said.
Colonel Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for Central Command (CENTCOM), which is overseeing efforts against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, said the fighters had handed over the gear in exchange for safe passage in the Al-Nusra operating area.
"If accurate, the report of NSF members providing equipment to Al-Nusra Front is very concerning and a violation of Syria train-and-equip program guidelines," Ryder said.
Ryder added that the pickup vehicles and ammunition represented about 25 percent of the equipment issued to the group by the US-led coalition.
"We are using all means at our disposal to look into what exactly happened and determine the appropriate response," Ryder said.
A defense official told AFP that according to the rebels, there had not been any defections, but he stressed: "We only know what they have told us."
The development is another embarrassing setback for the US effort to "train and equip" moderate Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State jihadists in Syria.
The $500-million program originally aimed to ready around 5,400 vetted fighters a year for three years but problems finding suitable candidates have seen only a fraction getting trained.
The first graduates, who made up a group of 54 fighters, were attacked by Al-Nusra in July and the Pentagon isn't sure what happened to them all. At least one was killed.
The second group, consisting of about 70 rebels, were sent back to Syria last weekend and reports began circulating on Twitter soon after that they had either defected or handed over equipment.
Last week, before the insertion of the new fighters, the US general overseeing efforts against IS drew disbelief from senior lawmakers when he told them only "four or five" US-trained rebels were on the ground fighting in Syria.
Unwilling to commit US ground troops in the region, the Obama administration in January launched the train-and-equip mission for Syrian opposition fighters as part of a broader push to work with locals there and in Iraq.
The program has faltered, with many would-be fighters failing the strict screening process. The troops are being trained as part of the US-led fight against Islamic State in the region.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...Qaeda-group-Official/articleshow/49115151.cms
Set up a coalition to rid the region of ISIS - and yes that means working alongside the Iranians and Russians, this isn't the 80s. Put pressure on the Saudi and Qatari financiers, put pressure on the Turks to actually control their border. Following this, joint talks with the Russians to put in place a power sharing arrangement that benefits all Syrians, with Assad possibly stepping down.
Diplomacy with all parties instead of resorting to bombing problems away.
This.
There are no parrallels to be drawn between contemporary conflicts and war with the axis powers.
Extra troops would have exacerbated the problem, not alleviated it. The Iraqi insurgency was conceived out foreign troop presence, amplifying it would have only fanned more flames.
How do you deal with Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, etc.?
By proxy of association. If they choose to be a part of a productive and peaceful narrative then we should hear their concerns. If they continue to align themselves with ISIS' values, they should be treated as such.
A bullet to the brain for those who still oppose democracy? 'merica style, feck yeah!
And what does that mean - that they accept Assad stays? Because they're nowhere near that stage at the moment.
Whatever their ideology, they have a level of legitimacy with a significant section of the Syrian population, and they've spent more time fighting ISIS than Assad has (and vice-versa). If you lump them in with ISIS, all you'll do is strengthen ISIS.
This is another, unsurprisingly sectarian, one sided approach that will not fix much. Russia and Iran don't want Assad gone because he is their ally and any solution must involve the removal of each of ISIS, Assad and other armed groups. You will note that there were a couple of hundred thousand deaths inside Syria before ISIS rolled into town, so just focusing on them and scolding those pesky gulf Arabs, will only return Syria to a normal civil war. The non-ISIS groups that are battling Assad have little incentive to participate in such a plan, which is why each armed group within Syria has to be removed. Anything other than that won't work.
Al Nusra spent more time fighting ISIS than Assad? Now I've heard it all.
I discussed a power sharing solution ala Lebanon, immaterial of whether Assad stays or leaves.
So a solution that would involve the diplomatic coercion of ALL parties is considered sectarian and one-sided?
With ISIS removed, diplomacy becomes paramount to prevent the civil war from persisting. With all due respect your proposal to kill absolutely everyone and start afresh is nothing short of madness. The 'clean slate' didn't work in Iraq, and it won't work in Syria.
As part of the Islamic Front/Jaysh al-Fatah coalitions, Nusra have indeed been one of the most prominent members of a force which has spent far more time fighting ISIS than Assad has - they actually successfully ousted ISIS from Aleppo city and Idlib province completely. What has Assad achieved against ISIS?
As for the Lebanese solution, that was brought about, like most conflicts, when all the various actors came to realize victory by arms was impossible. The various factions in Syria are currently a long way from that point now - what incentive does Assad have to enter a political process which may finish him when he still believes he can achieve victory on the battle field?
It amazes me that people who would argue - with justification - that Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza have helped fuel the rise of Islamic extremism in Palestine, or that US policies in the wider Islamic world have helped fuel the rise of transnational jihadism, can look at what the Assad dynasty has done in Syria, not just since 2011 but over a period of 45 years, and not only see no link to the rise of groups like Nusra, Ahrar and even ISIS there, but claim that Assad is part of the solution! It's like arguing that the only way to defeat Hezbollah is to send Israeli troops into southern Lebanon to fight them. (edit - @Kaos this last paragraph not directed at you in particular)
Last edited:
So a solution that would involve the diplomatic coercion of ALL parties is considered sectarian and one-sided?
With ISIS removed, diplomacy becomes paramount to prevent the civil war from persisting. With all due respect your proposal to kill absolutely everyone and start afresh is nothing short of madness. The 'clean slate' didn't work in Iraq, and it won't work in Syria.
No I'm saying that any solution that leaves Assad in power isn't a solution - because it would only take things back to pre-ISIS civil war violence. You would only be removing ISIS, which wouldn't work any ways since they occupy territory in 2 countries.
The quarrells Nusra/IF or whichever affiliated group has had with ISIS has largely been over pedantic politics and jostles of power. They were at one point all too happy to be chummy with ISIS. To merely dignify them as some benevolent anti-ISIS buffer would be a massive indignity to the likes of the Kurds who have fought and suffered bravely to actually counter the grave threat they possess.
The power-sharing agreement wouldn't necessarily echo the Lebanese model, and it might require some substantial devolution and concessions of regional autonomy, but it has to be the solution if we are to avoid many more years of pointless bloodshed. Almost all violent stalemates in recent history have come to end thanks largely to the various sides swallowing their pride and actually coming to an agreement, even if its through gritted teeth.
Your comparisons to the radicalisation effect in Palestine and the rest of the Islamic world is an interesting one, but you're missing a key difference - largely that those aforementioned conflicts have involved non-Muslims clashing with Muslims. This on the other hand is a sectarian struggle amongst various factions, almost all Islamic. The radicalisation effect works both ways in this case, as we've seen in Iraq.
And if a considerable bulk of the Syrian population wish for him to remain? What do you do? Spite them and leave them at the mercy of those who are out for blood?
Assad staying wouldn't likely be a sustainable solution, but as with Saddam, a forceful removal with no clear transitional roadmap will likely lead to no where, or worse - further violence.
That's why they should have elections to elect a leader - and not ones arranged by the Assad family.
Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan have all held 'elections' in recent years, how are those countries doing then?
Its like the last decade never happened.
That's not really a valid counterargument for actually allowing citizens to decide how their lives are governed, as opposed to being tyrannized by a dictatorship that deprives them of those rights.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
So when can we expect the cavalry to then bless the citizens of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia with democracy then?
If the situation were as dire as in Syria, I'm sure there would be more pressure on both.
Have a read back through my posts on Nusra, Ahrar etc. in this thread, it's been clear all along exactly what I think of them, and one of my pet peeves with coverage of this conflict is how they have managed to portray themselves as viable moderates in comparison with ISIS. My point is that they have a genuine legitimacy with many Syrians that ISIS will never have, and like it or not, they have played a major role in preventing ISIS expanding further across northern Syria. That's the reality that those who want to make this a straight "Assad vs. ISIS" fight want to avoid, and it won't change just because I happen to think they resemble the Taliban in their political program.
Kaos said:
Well Sunnis do not generally consider Alawites to be Muslims, and indeed until quite recently, Twelver Shi'a didn't really either. In any case I don't think the difference is key, the effect of suffering oppression/injustice is the same no matter who is inflicting it on you. You cannot separate the nature of Nusra, Ahrar, etc. from what the Assad regime has done to Syrian society for almost half a century. I agree with your last point though, which is why I've stated in this thread that if I were a Syrian Alawite or Christian, I would be firmly and understandably in the Assad camp.
The Saudi government were allowed to pretty much invade Bahrain to crush any civil movement that had been growing, much to the public outcry of no one from the West. They're also bombing Yemeni civilians, with thousands perished and many more likely to suffer a similar fate. I'm failing to see any public outrcry or pressure mounting.
And that is why I sincerely believe their concerns should be heard and taken seriously on a diplomatic table, providing they isolate themselves from ISIS - both in affiliation and values.
Your final point here cements why diplomacy is the only real solution. We can't leave the fate of millions of Alawites and Christians at the hands of those that would be out for their blood. You'd potentially be damning them to a gruesome fate.
Yemen is a mess and deserves more scrutiny imo, and probably would if the likes of ISIS weren't such a pressing issue in Iraq and Syria at the moment. That doesn't however lessen any of the previous points made about needing to start afresh in Syria, which isn't likely to happen with Russia propping Assad up in a limited enclave.
Let's be honest with ourselves, the Russians aren't the only ones doing the propping up here. Where is it you think the millions of dollars worth of weaponry, logistical support and funding for the rebels has come from? Didn't your folks just spend $500million training a handful of rebels who either got arrested soon after deployment or simply just gifted all their new toys to Al Nusra?
Your point about Yemen is a bizarre one, the world isn't going to suddenly be blind to the atrocities committed in another (nearby) country just because they're occupied with a conflict elsewhere.
Propping up here means supporting the regime from fully collapsing. There's little propping up going on with the exception of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah - the US, in its feeble attempt at arming the anti-Assad/anti-ISIS rebels has hardly made a dent in what is going on.
I'd hardly call the joint efforts of the US, Turkey, the Arab league circus and many European countries as being a 'feeble' attempt. We're talking millions of dollars, considerable logistical support and heavy weaponry. You could argue that they're pretty much the sole reason that rebellion had persisted up to now.