Hillary Clinton talking A LOT of sense on foreign policy

[Blue3]

If we had intervened more strongly in Syria, helping the Free Syrian Army topple Assad, the IS would not be the problem that they are today.

I love the idea that the FSA had any chance of forming a single government. Even if they had been artificially propped up (which would make for fantastic propaganda for both Assad and ISIS) they would have collapsed to either ISIS or Ba'athists.

I doubt it.

But that would still be preferable to what we have now.

[Lurker]

I'm surprised that Lief would praise this interview so much, considering his anti-Israeli views and the views Hillary expresses here. She more or less entirely supports Israeli policy in the West Bank, in addition to taking a very onesided view towards the conflict in general.

[Simfan34]

If we had intervened more strongly in Syria, helping the Free Syrian Army topple Assad, the IS would not be the problem that they are today.

This is correct. On the other hand, around 2005 I would have supported engaging al-Assad to a far greater extent than we did, which I believed well before the civil war started. This whole conflict became an existential struggle against "Western imperialism" for survival far too quickly for any kind of peaceful resolution.

Obviously the blame for a lack of reform falls squarely on al-Assad but had western government made a more significant effort to engage Syria, encourage investment, and then tie those to the accommodation of secular reformists into the government and opening of the political system, the conflict would have at least have been less desperate and have probably reached a conclusion of some sort by now.

The greatest way of avoiding violent power struggles is to lower the stakes of a power transfer. Had al-Assad been assured he, his family, and the Alawites would not meet violent ends if he were to leave or share power, he would have almost certainly would have done so by now. He doesn't strike me as the sort of person to cling to power for its own sake, but rather for the sake of self-preservation; after all he inherited power rather than taking it himself. Which again raises the point of a better outcome had we given more support to the FSA than we did: say what you'd like about them but they're undoubtedly more humane and reasonable than ISIS.

[Deus Naturae]

We did intervene in the conflict though....by training and supplying jihadists who have now joined ISIS. Clinton is undoubtedly aware of this fact, yet she has the gall to claim that if we had intervened further, we wouldn't have armed jihadists and the FSA would've won. She is a blatant liar and her supporters are either ignorant or in denial at this point.

Wow. You are sinking low. Surely you must be aware that WorldNetDaily and BeforeItsNews are less credible sources than your everyday Murdoch tabloid. The IBT article doesn't say that the U.S. trained ISIS... it says the U.S. trained some Syrian rebels in Jordan. That's no secret. Then it goes on to speculate that "A USA-ISIS tie-up is plausible, considering the fact how the CIA was responsible for the strengthening of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan." So basically their evidence that the U.S. trained ISIS is to point to the CIA activities in Afghanistan 30 years ago, and imply guilt by association. Sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US trained Syrian jihadists in Jordan so that they could fight in the Syrian Civil War. The Army was already planning to fight alongside or at least use jihadists in the conflict. You think that suddenly would've changed had we decided to do more in Syria!?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you yourself are no doubt aware, the FSA is not the only Syrian rebel group. There are also jihadist groups...which we trained and supplied to fight in the conflict, and are now (or already were when we trained them) members of ISIS. Did you even read the article I linked to?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

False leap much? You're listing a bunch of reasons why Assad is terrible (which I obviously agree with)...and then drawing the conclusion that if we'd intervened to stop him we would've successfully destroyed his regime, set up a stable and non-despotic one in its place, and ISIS wouldn't be a problem in Iraq. You need to justify all of those links, especially the last one since it's the most dubious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You basically ignored the IB Times article I linked (and get others if you want) and claimed it said something it didn't. You're the one who needs to get your head out of the sand and take a look at the heads chopped of by Syrian jihadists we trained in Jordan to fight in the Civil War.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I love how naïve hawks think that everyone in Syria who is fighting Assad can clearly be identified as "moderate" or "Islamist" and that none of the arms we give them could possibly be going into ISIS hands.

[Beet]

Deus,

Look man, the bottom line of this is that we need to get past the whole idea of "anyone we arm in the Middle East is going to turn into Osama bin Laden OMGZ the '80s! Benghazi!"

The reality is, 90% of people in Syria and Iraq, no matter what side they are on, do not want to live under ISIS-style shariah law, with beheadings and all. Have some formerly more moderate militias joined ISIS? Sure. Not for ideology... because ISIS was beheading those that didn't join them or revolted against them. Because ISIS had by far the best equipment. Cities surrendered to Genghis Khan, too. Yes, any time we arm someone, train them, there's always a risk, there's always a leap of faith. But it's better than the alternative of having no allies in the region at all, and just crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. If we have no friends, enemies will fill the vacuum.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Giving arms to anyone but the Kurds really would have been pure idiocy. It's clear that other support would have ended up with ISIS. McCain met with some "moderate" rebels last year, that included some future ISIS members. It was a bad idea in 2012 and 2013, and with hindsight in 2014 is an even worse idea. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea shouldn't be allowed within 10,000 miles of the White House.

[Deus Naturae]

Deus,

Look man, the bottom line of this is that we need to get past the whole idea of "anyone we arm in the Middle East is going to turn into Osama bin Laden OMGZ the '80s! Benghazi!"

The reality is, 90% of people in Syria and Iraq, no matter what side they are on, do not want to live under ISIS-style shariah law, with beheadings and all. Have some formerly more moderate militias joined ISIS? Sure. Not for ideology... because ISIS was beheading those that didn't join them or revolted against them. Because ISIS had by far the best equipment. Cities surrendered to Genghis Khan, too. Yes, any time we arm someone, train them, there's always a risk, there's always a leap of faith. But it's better than the alternative of having no allies in the region at all, and just crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. If we have no friends, enemies will fill the vacuum.

So, you're claiming that the rebels we trained were just forced to join and fight for ISIS? I really doubt that. Based on the Ib Times article as well as this, it sounds like they were already members of ISIS, though it isn't exactly clear. ISIS really doesn't strike me as the sort of group to force non-believers to fight with them...more likely they would've just beheaded any moderates they defeated. Our current "allies" in the region have directly funded ISIS, so the "vacuum" that would supposedly com into beings if the US stopped meddling in lands millions of miles from our shores sounds pretty good right now.

But, let's just assume that these people were actually moderates who all just happened to be captured and forced to fight by ISIS. Clinton's statement is still 100% ridiculous, and she knows it. Training even more of these people would not have stopped ISIS from rising...you still have yet to justify this absurd claim and have now changed your story from "training and arming more rebels would've stopped ISIS" to "well the rebels we trained joined ISIS but that was just an accident and they had to have been moderates."