Should the U.S. work more with Bashar Al-Assad in the fight against ISIS?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Quite tricky choice here. Should the U.S. accept Assad and allow him to remain in power in the coalition against ISIS? Or should the U.S. still work for the removal of the Assad regime while simultaneously targeting Isis?

[Green Line]

Yes.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[politicus]

At this point yes. The alternative is worse and the civil war needs to end - it threatens to destabilize the whole region and the surrounding contries can not cope with the influx of refugees. Since it can only end with either an Assad victory or Sunni extremists taking control Assad is by now the lesser evil, as absurd as it sounds.

Best case scenario is probably that the Kurdish areas are secured autonomy as part of a peace deal - and some presence of UN-forces be arranged to protect them + secure home coming refugees.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Either yes or get the hell out of Syria.

[DavidB.]

No. IS is horrible but geopolitically irrelevant: it probably won't become much worse than this in terms of territorial loss. Working together with Assad and legitimizing his power would greatly help Iran and Russia. We already know that Obama doesn't have much problems with helping Iran, but still it would be stupid. The US-led coalition just needs to keep bombing IS, do its best to save minorities, and as for the rest we should stay out of it, at least for now.

[Storebought]

No. Quite the opposite: if Russia gets involved in Syria, then we should be the ones arming Islamic State (through Turkey, of course). IS is not a strategic threat -- Russia is.

[Storebought]

No. Quite the opposite: if Russia gets involved in Syria, then we should be the ones arming Islamic State (through Turkey, of course). IS is not a strategic threat -- Russia is.

Yeah, that worked out really well when the US was attacked by the same people we armed in Afghanistan.

Weren't the 9/11 attackers primarily middle-class Saudis and Pakistanis?

But that is beside the point -- the US is able to employ strategies to defeat, or at least temporarily suppress, Islamic terrorism that we cannot at all do in the case of Russian aggression. Can the US launch drone strikes against Russian army formations? Can a group of Marines just enter Russia and shoot Vladimir Putin in his living room as he is watching CNN? Not to mention the fact that Russia has 8000 nuclear warheads whereas IS has 0.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

"Come on, guys, let's bolster ANOTHER brutal tyrant with American arms and money! That totally won't embolden the cause of anti-American Islamist extremists, no sir!"

[Storebought]

No. Quite the opposite: if Russia gets involved in Syria, then we should be the ones arming Islamic State (through Turkey, of course). IS is not a strategic threat -- Russia is.

Yeah, that worked out really well when the US was attacked by the same people we armed in Afghanistan.

Weren't the 9/11 attackers primarily middle-class Saudis and Pakistanis?

But that is beside the point -- the US is able to employ strategies to defeat, or at least temporarily suppress, Islamic terrorism that we cannot at all do in the case of Russian aggression. Can the US launch drone strikes against Russian army formations? Can a group of Marines just enter Russia and shoot Vladimir Putin in his living room as he is watching CNN? Not to mention the fact that Russia has 8000 nuclear warheads whereas IS has 0.

I was talking about Taliban, but yeah I should have worded that differently.

Why do we need to attack Russia? We have such a large advantage over them and have so many more allies that they would never be the aggressor. I don't feel it's wise  to go to war over a possible threat.

It is Putin who is intent on reviving this tired 19th century "Great Game" nonsense and is using the suppression of IS as a pretext to solidify his hold in Ukraine. Putin manifestly gives not a sh**t about IS as a threat -- they permit Putin and Assad to defame the entirety of the Syrian opposition as lurid fanatics.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Quite tricky choice here. Should the U.S. accept Assad and allow him to remain in power in the coalition against ISIS? Or should the U.S. still work for the removal of the Assad regime while simultaneously targeting Isis?

We allow him to remain in power - what is the other practical option, unless we go in there with guns blazing and help ISIS take over?  That does not mean we have to treat him as a partner in a coalition and give him any direct help.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No. Quite the opposite: if Russia gets involved in Syria, then we should be the ones arming Islamic State (through Turkey, of course). IS is not a strategic threat -- Russia is.

Yeah, that worked out really well when the US was attacked by the same people we armed in Afghanistan.

It led to the collapse of the EVIL USSR so yes it worked out well in the long run

[Higgs]

"Come on, guys, let's bolster ANOTHER brutal tyrant with American arms and money! That totally won't embolden the cause of anti-American Islamist extremists, no sir!"

[Zioneer]

Honestly, I think breaking away a high-ranking leader in Assad's government/military (that isn't directly related to Assad) might be the best bet. If we can suppress ISIS and get someone who isn't the butcher of Syria in charge (yet someone who belonged to his government to clear up fears of the Assad loyalists), then that might be the optimal route.

[politicus]

Generally most of you underestimate how destabilizing this conflict is. This is a conflict that needs to end ASAP and this obviously require that one of the parties win.

Also, forget about Russia in this context, it is utterly irrelevant compared to the severity of the situation.

[Blue3]

I'd rather get rid of Assad first, then wipe out ISIS.

[Clark Kent]

Honestly, I think breaking away a high-ranking leader in Assad's government/military (that isn't directly related to Assad) might be the best bet. If we can suppress ISIS and get someone who isn't the butcher of Syria in charge (yet someone who belonged to his government to clear up fears of the Assad loyalists), then that might be the optimal route.

This seems like the best bet unless we can find some moderate rebels to prop up again.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Of course (literally not insane)

[Storebought]

Generally most of you underestimate how destabilizing this conflict, this is a conflict that needs to end ASAP and this obviously require that one of the parties win.

Also, forget about Russia in this context, it is utterly irrelevant compared to the severity of the situation.

A Russian army presence in Damascus makes removal of Assad impossible. Assad has killed and tortured more civilians during this civil war than IS and Al Nusra put together. He is the destabilizing element in the country, and should be removed, preferably on a timeline. Not to mention, Russian presence also impedes effective operations of a US Army intervention against IS, when or if US intervention against them ever becomes a necessity.

Putin knows all of this, which is the only reason why he suggested it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Generally most of you underestimate how destabilizing this conflict, this is a conflict that needs to end ASAP and this obviously require that one of the parties win.

Also, forget about Russia in this context, it is utterly irrelevant compared to the severity of the situation.

A Russian army presence in Damascus makes removal of Assad impossible. Assad has killed and tortured more civilians during this civil war than IS and Al Nusra put together. He is the destabilizing element in the country, and should be removed, preferably on a timeline. Not to mention, Russian presence also impedes effective operations of a US Army intervention against IS, when or if US intervention against them ever becomes a necessity.

Putin knows all of this, which is the only reason why he suggested it.

How would Russia fighting ISIS get in the way of the US fighting ISIS?

[Storebought]

Russia will not fight IS directly; through Assad, the Russians will fight the collective Syrian opposition, just calling them all IS. Putin made use of this composition fallacy in his UN address.  

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course not. People like Assad are the reason ISIS exists in the first place.

Yes.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

An Arabic proverb attributed to a prince who was betrayed and decapitated by his own subjects.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

We should just let other countries fight ISIS.

[Green Line]

We should just let other countries fight ISIS.

No other countries will fight them unless we do.  They look to us for leadership.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

We should just let other countries fight ISIS.

No other countries will fight them unless we do.  They look to us for leadership.

Looks like Russia is going to do it.  And aren't several countries (including the US) already bombing ISIS?