Islamic State vs. The World (except Canada)

[politicus]

Maliki has resigned.

About time.

[politicus]

Even if we look at Syria through the "liberal-internationalist" lens where everything is about genocide-prevention, anyone who knows the first thing about the Syrian war is that if the rebels, "moderate" or otherwise, win, it is a certainty that there will be a genocide of Syrian Alawites, Christians, Druze, and possibly Kurds.  On the other hand, it isn't possible for Assad to perpetrate a genocide on the Sunnis who are 2/3rds of the population.

So, by liberal-internationalist criteria - that prioritize the minorities' lives over the majority's feels - it is necessary to support Assad or at least allow him to win, in order to prevent a massive genocide.

(And, as others have pointed out, from a realist point of view, IS is a massive threat to American interests while Assad isn't much of one at all.  Assad is the only force in Syria capable of defeating IS, the only one willing to vigorously press the offensive against IS until it is defeated and to continue to vigorously suppress it afterwards, and the only one mutually unwilling to come to some sort of accommodation with IS.  So realism dictates hitching your cart to Assad as well).

I'm not at all sure Assad is capable of defeating IS, or particularly willing. He's most likely happy just holding the western population centers of Syria, the so-called Alawite crescent stretching from Damascus to the coast, plus Aleppo if he can get it (which so far he can't). The moderate rebels have shown more success against IS in the battlefield: From January through March, they dealt IS severe defeats and nearly drove them out of central Syria. It was only the arrival of new equippment and moral from Iraq which turned the tide.

Undoubtedly, due to the horrific massacres carried out by Alawite, Druze and Christian militias, there will certainly be some desire for retaliation. The situation these groups are in is of their own doing, and the U.S. is under no obligation to help them. With that said, it doesn't have to be a genocide. If the United States extracts promises of postwar reconciliation makes clear that Western support is dependent on good behavior, the Western-dependent rebels can be dissuaded from excessive retaliation.

The idea that minority groups are collectively responsible for what some militias are doing is absurd.

[politicus]

Even if we look at Syria through the "liberal-internationalist" lens where everything is about genocide-prevention, anyone who knows the first thing about the Syrian war is that if the rebels, "moderate" or otherwise, win, it is a certainty that there will be a genocide of Syrian Alawites, Christians, Druze, and possibly Kurds.  On the other hand, it isn't possible for Assad to perpetrate a genocide on the Sunnis who are 2/3rds of the population.

So, by liberal-internationalist criteria - that prioritize the minorities' lives over the majority's feels - it is necessary to support Assad or at least allow him to win, in order to prevent a massive genocide.

(And, as others have pointed out, from a realist point of view, IS is a massive threat to American interests while Assad isn't much of one at all.  Assad is the only force in Syria capable of defeating IS, the only one willing to vigorously press the offensive against IS until it is defeated and to continue to vigorously suppress it afterwards, and the only one mutually unwilling to come to some sort of accommodation with IS.  So realism dictates hitching your cart to Assad as well).

I'm not at all sure Assad is capable of defeating IS, or particularly willing. He's most likely happy just holding the western population centers of Syria, the so-called Alawite crescent stretching from Damascus to the coast, plus Aleppo if he can get it (which so far he can't). The moderate rebels have shown more success against IS in the battlefield: From January through March, they dealt IS severe defeats and nearly drove them out of central Syria. It was only the arrival of new equipment and moral from Iraq which turned the tide.

Undoubtedly, due to the horrific massacres carried out by Alawite, Druze and Christian militias, there will certainly be some desire for retaliation. The situation these groups are in is of their own doing, and the U.S. is under no obligation to help them. With that said, it doesn't have to be a genocide. If the United States extracts promises of postwar reconciliation makes clear that Western support is dependent on good behavior, the Western-dependent rebels can be dissuaded from excessive retaliation.

The idea that minority groups are collectively responsible for what some militias are doing is absurd.

No more absurd than the idea that the whole Syrian opposition is collectively responsible for some extremists.

Of course not, but that doesn't make it any better.

[politicus]

Time to change the thread title -we are now striking IS in Syria.

Plus BREAKING is outdated, its IS now and its not just American forces bombing.

[politicus]

British Parliament votes for ISIS airstrikes.

Doesn't rule out extending the mission to Syria:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/mps-commons-debate-iraq-air-strikes


BBC commentator: "Vast majority doesn't reflect the enormous unease among backbenchers"

[politicus]

So, Turkey has now allowed its army to enter Syria and Iraq if necessary. Do you think it's going to happen?

Turkey has no friends in the Syrian conflict: ISIL, Assad and the Kurds - they are all Turkish foes, and any of them could it the country badly. There is no doubt than the Turks do not want to be involved, but unfortunately for them, it seems like they cannot avoid trouble indefinitely, and they are walking on an extremely thin line...

They have also allowed for foreign allied forces to be stationed in Turkey and use Turkish military facilities, which is more likely to happen IMO.

[politicus]

Did they make any distinction between ground forces and air forces?

No.

[politicus]

The rumors that ISIS is training pilots is great news for the proponents of a no-fly zone, and those who want to get rid of Assad... We will see whether the US are tricked into enforcing this no-fly zone.

There is 0 chance they can get those old Mig 21s up and flying even if they have pilots, fuel, armaments and ground crew (which they probably don't).

Please elaborate.