ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Raoul said:
Its merely delaying the inevitable as Assad will never have any legitimacy as a Syrian leader going forward. At this point he is merely a Putin puppet who is allowed to be alive in exchange for Putin's bases. Once that symbiotic bargain is taken out of the equation, the war will continue to kick on.
Click to expand...

Here's a newsflash - almost every single Middle Eastern leader has no legitimacy, and they're all in some shape or form a puppet for their respective superpower sponsor. What you described Assad as pretty much applies to the monarchy in Bahrain, the Yemeni interim government, Saudi Arabia and others. Heck it would also apply to Iraq if it weren't for the Iranian counterbalance. The difference lies in what their sponsor envisages for the region.

And right now I'd rather the 'Putin puppet' if it guarantees a secular Syria as opposed to the US vision of empowering Wahabist theocrats in Saudi Arabia, Islamist rebels in Syria and Zionist extremists in Israel and the West Bank.
 
Kaos said:
Here's a newsflash - almost every single Middle Eastern leader has no legitimacy, and they're all in some shape or form a puppet for their respective superpower sponsor. What you described Assad as pretty much applies to the monarchy in Bahrain, the Yemeni interim government, Saudi Arabia and others. Heck it would also apply to Iraq if it weren't for the Iranian counterbalance. The difference lies in what their sponsor envisages for the region.

And right now I'd rather the 'Putin puppet' if it guarantees a secular Syria as opposed to the US vision of empowering Wahabist theocrats in Saudi Arabia, Islamist rebels in Syria and Zionist extremists in Israel and the West Bank.
Click to expand...

But few of them farcically pretend to be in charge while their country is considered a failed state. You are therefore just kicking the can until something happens to Putin, Assad, or whoever the next U.S. President may be, who won't tolerate Assad gassing his people. The only long term solution is democratic governance where all factions (excluding fringe extremists) can choose a new leader, constitution, and share power equitably. Anything short of that is merely a recipe for continued cyclical violence.
 
Raoul said:
But few of them farcically pretend to be in charge while their country is considered a failed state. You are therefore just kicking the can until something happens to Putin, Assad, or whoever the next U.S. President may be, who won't tolerate Assad gassing his people. The only long term solution is democratic governance where all factions (excluding fringe extremists) can choose a new leader, constitution, and share power equitably. Anything short of that is merely a recipe for continued cyclical violence.
Click to expand...

Again, this logic still applies to all of the US's regional partners too. Pull the diplomatic, economic and military support then these dictatorships all fall like a house of cards. The Arab spring gave us a glimpse of that in countries like Egypt and Bahrain, were had it not been for US-Gulf intervention, those regimes would have evaporated into the night. Saddam in 1991 was another example - he was on the precipice of being overthrown had it not been for US intervention to help him consolidate his power.

Also remember with Syria - while it's always been under an oppressive dictatorship, its been a stable and secular country ever since its independence from the French. All that changed when the US and her Gulf allies decided to force regime change by arming theocrat extremists. And no, the initial protests wouldn't have blown up to the quagmire we have now had it not been for this intervention.
 
Kaos said:
right now I'd rather the 'Putin puppet' if it guarantees a secular Syria as opposed to the US vision of empowering Wahabist theocrats in Saudi Arabia, Islamist rebels in Syria and Zionist extremists in Israel and the West Bank.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on Syria (though I'd prefer to refer to the Assad regime as "Ba'thist" rather than secular). But erm...

1060x600-32c61dc91b2708d5e27a789e68e19343.jpg


putin-and-netanyahu_0.jpg


Kaos said:
Also remember with Syria - while it's always been under an oppressive dictatorship, its been a stable and secular country ever since its independence from the French
Click to expand...

Nah, it was possibly the least stable country in the region until Hafiz al-Assad seized power in 1970 - certainly until 1958. And secular in this case is a relative term, as implied above it's not so straightforward to describe either the Syrian or Iraqi Ba'th regimes as secular in the way it's understood in the West.
 
Kaos said:
Again, this logic still applies to all of the US's regional partners too. Pull the diplomatic, economic and military support then these dictatorships all fall like a house of cards. The Arab spring gave us a glimpse of that in countries like Egypt and Bahrain, were had it not been for US-Gulf intervention, those regimes would have evaporated into the night. Saddam in 1991 was another example - he was on the precipice of being overthrown had it not been for US intervention to help him consolidate his power.

Also remember with Syria - while it's always been under an oppressive dictatorship, its been a stable and secular country ever since its independence from the French. All that changed when the US and her Gulf allies decided to force regime change by arming theocrat extremists. And no, the initial protests wouldn't have blown up to the quagmire we have now had it not been for this intervention.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying about the other states. I want all of them to be democratic so the people can decide on a more stable long term path of governance. Let's get rid of dictatorships and absolute monarchies.
 
2cents said:
I'm with you on Syria (though I'd prefer to refer to the Assad regime as "Ba'thist" rather than secular). But erm...

1060x600-32c61dc91b2708d5e27a789e68e19343.jpg


putin-and-netanyahu_0.jpg
Click to expand...
Not sure why Putin meeting James Gandolfini is relevant in this debate? :smirk:

In all seriousness, those photos don't surprise me nor do I beleive they contradict my narrative. I don't consider Russia to be some binary counterbalance that opposes every US position by default, and such I would expect it to maintain relations and trade with some of the US's closest allies. But where it's balancing presence matters is the relations it maintains with the regimes and leaders the US considers persona non grata and and actively attempt to undermine them for their own regional goals. It's this balance which I consider to be crucial, as it was in the 50s-70s when the Soviet union backed the secular Arab republics while the US supported the Islamists and Israel.

2cents said:
Nah, it was possibly the least stable country in the region until Hafiz al-Assad seized power in 1970 - certainly until 1958. And secular in this case is a relative term, as implied above it's not so straightforward to describe either the Syrian or Iraqi Ba'th regimes as secular in the way it's understood in the West.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're absolutely right. I should have said stable since the Assad Ba'athist dynasty came into ascension.
 
Raoul said:
I agree with what you're saying about the other states. I want all of them to be democratic so the people can decide on a more stable long term path of governance. Let's get rid of dictatorships and absolute monarchies.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this, but I think we disagree on the means of doing so. The lessons of Iraq and Libya have made it apparent that forceful adoption of democratic systems overnight in regions like the Middle East often lead to chaotic and unstable outcomes. As we debated early, democracy doesn't overcome sectarian and tribal strifes, it merely empowers them under more legitimate pretenses. The harsh reality is that some of these countries aren't yet ready for an immediate transition to democratic systems and should be allowed to adopt them at their own organic pace. I think this will come with the inevitable mildening of religious zealotry (and if the West stops empowering extremists by either funding them, or broadening their appeal through their regional foreign policy).
 
Raoul said:
I agree with what you're saying about the other states. I want all of them to be democratic so the people can decide on a more stable long term path of governance. Let's get rid of dictatorships and absolute monarchies.
Click to expand...
Egypt had a democratic election. The Muslim Brotherhood won. It was overthrown by the military, but we're OK with that.
Turkey's military almost overthrew Erdogan but the coup failed because the majority preferred Erdogan. They now cooperate with HTS in Syria in order to strike at Kurds. Are we all OK with a NATO ally openly colluding with Al Qaeda?
 
Raoul said:
I agree with what you're saying about the other states. I want all of them to be democratic so the people can decide on a more stable long term path of governance. Let's get rid of dictatorships and absolute monarchies.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Let me guess, and you want to "start" with (all of) the Saudi enemies, which predictably ends with Al-Qaeda state, ISIS, or a big mess where the Saudi backed terrorists have the upper hand or create un-containable mess.

Yeah, I'm not gonna believe you here. How about you only have political goals, and you don't give a sh*t about democracy or human rights. ;)
 
Danny1982 said:
:rolleyes:

Let me guess, and you want to "start" with (all of) the Saudi enemies, which predictably ends with Al-Qaeda state, ISIS, or a big mess where the Saudi backed terrorists have the upper hand or create un-containable mess.

Yeah, I'm not gonna believe you here. How about you only have political goals, and you don't give a sh*t about democracy or human rights. ;)
Click to expand...

All absolute monarchies, especially those in the middle east.
 
Kaos said:
I'm with you on this, but I think we disagree on the means of doing so. The lessons of Iraq and Libya have made it apparent that forceful adoption of democratic systems overnight in regions like the Middle East often lead to chaotic and unstable outcomes. As we debated early, democracy doesn't overcome sectarian and tribal strifes, it merely empowers them under more legitimate pretenses. The harsh reality is that some of these countries aren't yet ready for an immediate transition to democratic systems and should be allowed to adopt them at their own organic pace. I think this will come with the inevitable mildening of religious zealotry (and if the West stops empowering extremists by either funding them, or broadening their appeal through their regional foreign policy).
Click to expand...

Exactly. You can't build a democracy without a foundation. It's a lesson that has been learned over the last 100ish years. All successful long term democracies, didn't really happen overnight, they had generations of progressive ideas and liberalism that established a social acceptance and understanding of the foundational concepts that allow a democracy to thrive.

These things haven't really happened in the middle-east. So if you throw a democracy into the middle east, or in many other areas of the world, the moment they lose the military support from the country that foisted democracy on them, it's fecking chaos. Democracies without that foundation, do not have the strength to overcome the ruthlessness of the other political actors. Power comes from the people, and if the people don't value or support democracy, then guess what, the democracy has no power.
 
Raoul said:
All absolute monarchies, especially those in the middle east.
Click to expand...
Oh you're back at the pretending thing? Here, let me refresh your memory...
Raoul said:
It will also strike fear in the hearts of a few dictators who think they are here to stay.
Click to expand...
Kaos said:
But not the ones in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and UAE..they'll be assured that they can stay.
Click to expand...
Raoul said:
Sure, its the way things go. Had Assad chosen a pro US position years ago, it would've been the same.
Click to expand...
 
This could be significant. It appears the cosy deals between FSA, Al Nusra and Turkey are evaporating.

IDLIB, Syria - With the Syrian Army on the march against terrorists forces in the jihadist-held northwest province of Idlib, infighting between the different factions is beginning to emerge.

The Free Syrian Army's [FSA] Liwa al-Mu'tasim Political Chief has pointed the finger at Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front for the impressive offensive the Syrian Army are currently conducting in the southern countryside of Idlib province.

"The quick fall of the villages and towns in Hama and Idlib [provinces] came as a result of the treachery of [Al-Nusra leader] Golani who prevented our Turkish allies from setting up checkpoints against the regime and its allies," he said.

In this instance, the FSA chief blames the terrorist organization for preventing the Turkish military from establishing a zone of its operation in which he believes would have prevented the Syrian Army from launching its operation to liberate the jihadist-held operation.

How this changes the close relationship between the FSA and the terrorist organization remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
 
I thought Turkey and Assad had some sort of truce going on? Assumed their common focus now would be to tame the SDF/YPG.
 
Kaos said:
I thought Turkey and Assad had some sort of truce going on? Assumed their common focus now would be to tame the SDF/YPG.
Click to expand...
My reading is what truces there have been between Assad and Erdogan were largely due to Russian diplomatic efforts. There's a lot of bad feeling between the Syrians and Turks going back decades but more specifically due to the Turks profiteering throughout the conflict, dismantling infrastructure and trucking it back to Turkey, etc., and being altogether too cosy with the terrorists. The SAA is currently focused on liberating Idlib and other provinces. Turkey has had troops there focused on the Kurds. Today there were reports of an as yet unknown force ambushing a Turkish military convoy there. It's a volatile situation. These alliances between different rebel factions appear to be short lived.
 
Meanwhile, the batshit crazy feckers are fighting each other as the SAA advances...

ALEPPO, Syria - ISIS terrorists operating on the Idlib axis (the border regions of Idlib, Aleppo and Hama province), have captured thirteen towns and villages from the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front.

This spells bad news for the Al-Nusra Front has in the past two weeks the Syrian military has captured over 100 sites from the terrorist organization, and with ISIS now making an offensive, it could see the complete expulsion of the Al-Qaeda affiliates from this region of Syria.

The settlements captured by ISIS from their rival jihadists are Qasr Ibn Wardan, Al-Ablah, Jubb al-Safa, Qalaat al-Hawayis, Abb Qana, Al-Aqlah, Tal al-Halawah, Ad-Dalala, Jubb Othman, Tal al-Ruman, Al-Jaduayat, Aziziyah and Al-Tarfawi.

It remains unlikely that they will make a counterattack as they are simultaneously trying to contain the rapid and aggressive advancement of the Syrian Army in the southern countryside of Idlib province in Syria's northwest.
Click to expand...
 
This reporter just doesn't give a shit! Brave/dumb, amazing scenes...

 
DenisIrwin said:
Just pointing it out. People seeing him described as a "brave journalist" in the Washington Post might not be aware.
Click to expand...

Ah, fair enough.

Whatever his affiliation though, the dude is one crazy mofo to be wandering those fields at that time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.