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

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

Well Russia isn't really trying to fight ISIS, they're just going in there to prop up Assad.  And our allies that are bombing them right now are doing it because we're already there.

[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?

Well Russia isn't really trying to fight ISIS, they're just going in there to prop up Assad.  And our allies that are bombing them right now are doing it because we're already there.

I believe that nations like Israel and Iran (ironic I know) will step in before ISIS becomes too powerful.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I honestly don't even care what happens in the Middle East anymore. It is obvious that every action by the west makes things much, much, much worse.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

The US never armed the Taliban. The Taliban didn't even exist in the 1980s, and their future leaders were in refugee camps in Pakistan during the war against the Soviets.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The NYT had an interesting article on this today by Thomas Friedman. Essentially, he argued that the only way to permanently defeat ISIS is to bolster moderate Sunnis, and that as Sunnis hate Assad, supporting him is ultimately counterproductive and will only drive more people into ISIS's camp.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Unfortunately, most moderate Sunnis in Syria have either fled, been killed, are too young/old/incapacitated/subdued to fight, not really 'moderate' at all or allying with one of the two sides as a lesser of two evils situation.

[politicus]

Unfortunately, most moderate Sunnis in Syria have either fled, been killed, are too young/old/incapacitated/subdued to fight, not really 'moderate' at all or allying with one of the two sides as a lesser of two evils situation.

True, that is a surprisingly naive proposal from Thomas Friedman.

[tpfkaw]

We should not actively try to remove him or keep pushing the "moderate rebels" fantasy.  On the other hand, best to be the good cop and let Russia be the bad cop who earns the Sunni world's undying hatred for actively supporting Assad.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Unfortunately, most moderate Sunnis in Syria have either fled, been killed, are too young/old/incapacitated/subdued to fight, not really 'moderate' at all or allying with one of the two sides as a lesser of two evils situation.

True, that is a surprisingly naive proposal from Thomas Friedman.

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. Friedman wasn't proposing that as a course of action so much as he was explaining why Putin's support for Assad won't lead to lasting peace in the region. He then goes on to explain why installing a moderate regime is a pipe dream:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The full article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/opinion/thomas-friedman-syria-obama-and-putin.html?_r=0

[ingemann]

The NYT had an interesting article on this today by Thomas Friedman. Essentially, he argued that the only way to permanently defeat ISIS is to bolster moderate Sunnis, and that as Sunnis hate Assad, supporting him is ultimately counterproductive and will only drive more people into ISIS's camp.

Friedman is not a guy who's wrong about everything, but he have been wrong about enough thing that I wouldn't trust him.

The problem here is manyfold; first who's the moderate Sunnis? It's not the young well off liberals from the cities, they lack a broad base, it's not the secular middle and upper class those support Assad. It's conservative rural tribes. While these may have a significant percent of the population behind them, they're still a minority (15-30% would be my guess) and not a terrible big one, it's doubtful they have the population or expertice to run a regime, and even if they had it would just be a Syrian version of pre-revolution Libya without oil money. This we mix with the fact that these groups would try to raise Jizya on Alawites, Druze and Christians and in general treat these as second class citizens. So we would likely see the Alawite and Druze go full sectarian, while the Christians would flee, and these moderates would be unable to conquer the Alawite or Druze areas without American support: How willing would USA be to support a bunch of marauders pillaging and massacre the coastal provinces and the capital? Especially as the end result would be a poor oil less version of Saudi Arabia.

The problem are what Friedman imagine "moderate" Sunnis are, is quite different from what they really are. They're not people who's in the middle between western values and Islamic values, they're just conservative tribal Sunnis, who doesn't embrace the Islamist modernity represented by Muslim Brotherhood, Al Queda and ISIS (presented from least worst to worst), but instead embrace more traditional but also in this context moderate values, where the Christian and the Alawite are not killed, but just treated as second class citizen and forced to pay extra taxes.

[ingemann]

We should not actively try to remove him or keep pushing the "moderate rebels" fantasy.  On the other hand, best to be the good cop and let Russia be the bad cop who earns the Sunni world's undying hatred for actively supporting Assad.

A excellent suggestion, and to large extent it's the policy Obama have embraced already with success.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ingemann, what's your perspective on this Xov article?

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423229/russia-bombing-isis-syria

[ingemann]

Ingemann, what's your perspective on this Xov article?

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423229/russia-bombing-isis-syria

First of all it won't surprise me if it's correct in Russia attacking here.

To call the rebels in Homs for ISIS enemies don't really have much with to do with reality, through it's technical correct. The people being bombed are a mix of JAN (Al Qaeda), Islamic Front (Salafis) and Sham Legion (Muslim Brotherhood). Yes they're not ISIS and technical they're enemies of ISIS, but in reality this is a enclave in government territory, where any ISIS supporters work under the banners of these organisation or "FSA".

But I'm not surprised, ISIS are the big boogeyman of the west, and Putin just use their name as a catch all for all Assad's Islamist enemies, just as USSR used fascist about all enemies of USSR.

But let's look at the reasons for this attack; there's both practical and strategic reason for this being a good idea. First of all this is the biggest rebel enclave in government territory, it's placed between two major Syrian cities; Homs (3rd) and Hama (5th), and it cut a major motorway over. The area around it have large Shia, Christian and Alawite population, plus there's large Hezbollah forces in the area. So reconquering will serve to free up a large amount of Syrian troops (as NDF could take over the occupation), it will make transport easier and make Homs, which is one of the regime's most important transportation hubs safer.

Practical the rebels in the area have little access to new recruit or weapons, so there's relative little risk for the Russians, in fact it will be a good place for the Russians to train air-earth attacks on irregular forces. Attacks can be backed by Hezbollah, who's the best force in Syria (if not the Middle East). It have little enough access to the world media, that potential atrocities can be credited as propaganda, and the area have relative little civil population. It's almost a perfect place for Russia to start helping Assad. Of course it would be perfect if the local Islamist decided to very public declare loyalty to ISIS, but you can't get it all.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I find it interesting that Hama is fully controlled by Assad forces given that cities history.

[ingemann]

I find it interesting that Hama is fully controlled by Assad forces given that cities history.

It's exactly why Assad was able to keep control, the Muslim Brotherhood take over was unpleasant to all non-Sunni Islamists (whether Alawite, Shia, Christian and even Sunni), the massacres removed much of the Muslim Brotherhood, Alawites was moved in afterwar and local non-Sunni Islamist got a very free hand afterward, so any Islamist elements have been significant weaken, and it's hard to reestablish a organisation when a significant part of the local population hate it and the government support that population.

[mencken]

We should not actively try to remove him or keep pushing the "moderate rebels" fantasy.  On the other hand, best to be the good cop and let Russia be the bad cop who earns the Sunni world's undying hatred for actively supporting Assad.

This. I would not be opposed to temporarily suspending Article 5 protection for countries that have been actively contributing to Syria's instability (cough cough Turkey cough).

[Cory]

"Moderate Sunni's".

You mean people supporting the Assad forces?

I think it's time for people here to accept that Assad is the only serious counterweight to the Radical Islamists. The FSA is the weakest of the factions remaining other then maybe Al-Nusra. The idea that they can seriously take over Syria and create a lasting government is nonsense. And the recent Russian intervention makes Western action against Assad impossible.

[ingemann]

"Moderate Sunni's".

You mean people supporting the Assad forces?

I think it's time for people here to accept that Assad is the only serious counterweight to the Radical Islamists. The FSA is the weakest of the factions remaining other then maybe Al-Nusra. The idea that they can seriously take over Syria and create a lasting government is nonsense. And the recent Russian intervention makes Western action against Assad impossible.

Al-Nusra/Jan is the second strongest rebel fraction in Syria, in fact a few years out into the future it may be stronger than ISIS again, as it's based on local Syrians (ISIS are based on foreigners), it's able to cooperate with the tribes and the other rebel groups.

As for FSA it have always been something of a joke, mostly because it have really never existed as a group, it's a morphic coalition of different groups, who unite under the FSA banner, as a way to get greater legitimacy and even foreign support. It have include everything, from liberal students (almost gone by now) to tribal bandits to less horrible than most Islamists. So when people say FSA it's relative meaningless, because it's unclear what local group they mean.

[TNF]

No, the United States should stay out of the conflict entirely, and cease whatever operations it has going at the moment against ISIS.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Could Assad be persuaded to step down if he and is family is given immunity from prosecution? Surely there's some ambitious crony in the Syrian government willing to take the top seat so the big powers won't have to ally with someone so ... tainted.

[Zioneer]

Could Assad be persuaded to step down if he and is family is given immunity from prosecution? Surely there's some ambitious crony in the Syrian government willing to take the top seat so the big powers won't have to ally with someone so ... tainted.

That's what I would try if I were US President. Just get someone who isn't known as part of the family of the butchers of Syria, and then go from there. Unfortunately, I think the Assads love power too much, and they've invested too much of their efforts, money, and influence to stop now. If the hypothetical ambitious crony could be propped up and convinced to purge the Syrian government of the Assads though, that might work.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The NYT had an interesting article on this today by Thomas Friedman. Essentially, he argued that the only way to permanently defeat ISIS is to bolster moderate Sunnis, and that as Sunnis hate Assad, supporting him is ultimately counterproductive and will only drive more people into ISIS's camp.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol