Should the US cease trying to remove Assad from power in Syria?

[Torie]

Read this article first before voting is my suggestion.

[Frodo]

The link doesn't work.  

[Torie]

The link doesn't work.  

Fixed. Thanks.

[ingemann]

Yes but it's more complex than that, USA have outside the support of the Kurds not been one of the important actors in this conflict. On the other hand USA's Middleeastern allies have been a important factor in this conflict against Assad, which is why USA (together with warmongers in opposition in Washington, who aren't happy without making the Middleeast burn) have had to pay lip service to the idea of removing Assad, while at the same time doing as little as possible to support their allies in their military adventures. Of course at the point we're at now Obama may get away with accepting the survival of the Assad regime, and honestly I can't see someone from the regime's side replacing  Bashar al-Assad who would be a more acceptable alternative.

[Blue3]

No. Assad should be removed before ISIS.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

WE ARE AMERICA, WE CAN FIGHT ASSAD, AL QAEDA, AND ISIS AT THE SAME TIME!!!!


But seriously, my answer has always been yes.

[Likely Voter]

I believe the US will move to supporting a 'transition period' where Assad stays in power until a a new democratic government can be set up. So they are still supporting the removal of Assad, but not the immediate removal.

[Torie]

I believe the US will move to supporting a 'transition period' where Assad stays in power until a a new democratic government can be set up. So they are still supporting the removal of Assad, but not the immediate removal.

Meaning total support for Assad least he be deposed by force of arms before then? In reality of course, the US is basically out of the game now, with next to no influence as to what happens. We let the genie out of the bottle and then split. So we bomb some ISIS targets, including some in Syria, that accomplishes nothing other than ineffectually attempt to create the chimera that the US is actually doing something worthwhile in this cluster f**k.

[Likely Voter]

The US has really not been trying to remove Assad from power using the military. There has been some half-assed support of rebels, but the primary military mission in Syria has been targetted at ISIS and Al Nusra and in support of the Kurds. But the US has put more effort into attacking ISIS in Iraq. The focus is more on a diplomatic solution in Syria. The US is hoping that the Russians can help cut some deal where Assad would agree to go at some time in the future after some transition.

[SillyAmerican]

Perhaps a better question is this: when a President draws a red line in the sand, is it important for there to be consequences when that line is crossed? I think the answer should be "YES", but by all indications, our President disagrees. If anyone can clarify what our foreign policy objectives currently are, and how we're going about trying to realize those objectives, it would be helpful.

[Intell]

The only way we can remove Assad is with boots on the ground, or at airstrikes trying to kill Assad, you can't fund rebels that are likely to be Islamic radicals.

[DavidB.]

No. Assad should be removed before ISIS.

This.

[SATW]

blue3 and DavidB, can you elaborate more?

I understand why you take this position, but at the same time...ISIS could completely destroy Syria as we knew it if Assad falls before them .

I think we need to cease removing him from power atm until we deal with ISIS. Russia is only targeting rebel groups threatening Assad, so we need to go in and get rid of ISIS ourselves while not funding any rebel groups.

I do understand that this, most likely, props up Assad for a bit, but ISIS is much more of a menace to the civilian population in Syria. After dealing w/ ISIS, we should work to stop Hezbollah from gaining any further strength (allies like Israel are keeping an eye on Hezbollah and with good reason).

After ISIS, and Hezbollah are dealt with...I think that is the only appropriate time to try and deal w/ Assad.

[Clark Kent]

I think we should take out ISIS first, but I agree, Assad has to go.


(Almost wrote Saddam)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Israel stopped bombing Syria, Beiruit because the UN wanted them to. Russia have a relationship with Syria, and they are part of Security Counsel; that's why we didnt bomb them when we had the news of weapons of mass destruction.

[Blue3]

blue3 and DavidB, can you elaborate more?

I understand why you take this position, but at the same time...ISIS could completely destroy Syria as we knew it if Assad falls before them .

I think we need to cease removing him from power atm until we deal with ISIS. Russia is only targeting rebel groups threatening Assad, so we need to go in and get rid of ISIS ourselves while not funding any rebel groups.

I do understand that this, most likely, props up Assad for a bit, but ISIS is much more of a menace to the civilian population in Syria. After dealing w/ ISIS, we should work to stop Hezbollah from gaining any further strength (allies like Israel are keeping an eye on Hezbollah and with good reason).

After ISIS, and Hezbollah are dealt with...I think that is the only appropriate time to try and deal w/ Assad.

ISIS has gained so much traction because of Assad. He motivates them. Him being "protected" by the West will motivate them even more.

If ISIS could somehow be ended first (which would be nearly impossible), then Assad would be in a stronger position than ever and be impossible to remove without a 2003-style invasion.

By contrast, if we remove Assad first, then ISIS would be drawn out into the open and destroyed, they would become stretched too thin by overreaching throughout the area, they'd lose motivation, and it would be more likely for the rifts within it to cause it to fracture.  And overall, if we want to get rid of both, getting rid of Assad first is the way to go.

[Zioneer]

Undecided. On the one hand, Assad's repression is directly responsible for this whole mess, and most of the refugees are fleeing because of him, but on the other hand, what will happen to the minority religions if Assad's government (not necessarily himself) is gone?

My preference would be to get Assad himself to be overthrown, but to get a more mild, non-related Alawite or whatnot currently in Assad's government to be the new leader of the gov. That way they can be at least theoretically acceptable to the Sunnis, but at the same time have the motivation to protect the minority religions.

ISIS of course needs to go yesterday.

[bballrox4717]

The people who are arguing to keep Assad in power ignore the fact that the war is never going to end and Syria will remain a lawless wasteland as long as he stays in power. The Syrian people have already proven this especially by submitting to extremist groups like ISIS and Nusra. Assad remains in power only because of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah who have completely exacerbated the conflict for their own geopolitical purposes (Syria is necessary for Iran to pressure Israel, Russia wants its warm water port).

To give any sort of political solution in which we give into them and allow Assad to stay completely destroys any American credibility in the Middle East. I can think of a hundred good reasons to have nothing to do with Saudi Arabia and a lot of the other repressive Arab states but losing their trust because of Assad would cause the loss of America influence in the Middle East for generations.

The current strategy is the only plausible option: keep ISIS from expanding and consolidating territory, support credible rebel forces as much as possible, and wait for Russia and Iran to inevitably pull out, as they cannot project the force necessary to allow Assad to completely win the war.

[Famous Mortimer]

Assad should go into exile. The rest of the Ba'ath Party and the non-ISIS opposition should form a coalition government.

[SATW]

blue3 and DavidB, can you elaborate more?

I understand why you take this position, but at the same time...ISIS could completely destroy Syria as we knew it if Assad falls before them .

I think we need to cease removing him from power atm until we deal with ISIS. Russia is only targeting rebel groups threatening Assad, so we need to go in and get rid of ISIS ourselves while not funding any rebel groups.

I do understand that this, most likely, props up Assad for a bit, but ISIS is much more of a menace to the civilian population in Syria. After dealing w/ ISIS, we should work to stop Hezbollah from gaining any further strength (allies like Israel are keeping an eye on Hezbollah and with good reason).

After ISIS, and Hezbollah are dealt with...I think that is the only appropriate time to try and deal w/ Assad.

ISIS has gained so much traction because of Assad. He motivates them. Him being "protected" by the West will motivate them even more.

If ISIS could somehow be ended first (which would be nearly impossible), then Assad would be in a stronger position than ever and be impossible to remove without a 2003-style invasion.

By contrast, if we remove Assad first, then ISIS would be drawn out into the open and destroyed, they would become stretched too thin by overreaching throughout the area, they'd lose motivation, and it would be more likely for the rifts within it to cause it to fracture.  And overall, if we want to get rid of both, getting rid of Assad first is the way to go.

Very good points, actually. My only issue is we'd need to have at least one major power getting involved ground-wise, if Assad is overthrown, to take out ISIS and the remnants of Assad's ilk/Hezbollah.

Who would do it? America? I don't think Obama would put in ground troops. Also, Russia would still be a problem.

[Angel of Death]

U.S. politicians don't give a !@#$ about the Syrian people. This is all about destroying the Iran-Syria axis for the benefit of Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf states and Israel.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

ISIS are less powerful than their propaganda would have you believe. Assad should be shepherded out of power with as many carrots and sticks as the U.S. has at its disposal.

[Orser67]

Imo the US should have three objectives, in this order:

1)Don't put large numbers of troops on the ground (as we learned from Iraq, this is likely to end up as a waste of lives and money, and would be damaging to US power)

2)Don't create conditions for ISIS or other Islamist groups to take over

3)Take out Assad, who is a brutal dictator, an implacable enemy of the US, and a destabilizing force in the region

Imo at this point the one way to accomplish all three objectives is to encourage a coup against Assad and a subsequent peace treaty between the government and the non-ISIS rebels

[Zioneer]

The people who are arguing to keep Assad in power ignore the fact that the war is never going to end and Syria will remain a lawless wasteland as long as he stays in power. The Syrian people have already proven this especially by submitting to extremist groups like ISIS and Nusra. Assad remains in power only because of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah who have completely exacerbated the conflict for their own geopolitical purposes (Syria is necessary for Iran to pressure Israel, Russia wants its warm water port).

To give any sort of political solution in which we give into them and allow Assad to stay completely destroys any American credibility in the Middle East. I can think of a hundred good reasons to have nothing to do with Saudi Arabia and a lot of the other repressive Arab states but losing their trust because of Assad would cause the loss of America influence in the Middle East for generations.

The current strategy is the only plausible option: keep ISIS from expanding and consolidating territory, support credible rebel forces as much as possible, and wait for Russia and Iran to inevitably pull out, as they cannot project the force necessary to allow Assad to completely win the war.

My biggest concern is protecting the minority religions in Syria (and Iraq for that matter) from extermination. I worry that the Syrian Sunnis have radicalized to the point where there are no credible alternatives to Assad (or again, my suggestion, a non-psychotic member of the Assad government).

[Cory]

No. Assad should be removed before ISIS.

Describe to me, specifically, how this is supposed to happen.

Do you mean Assad personally, or the regime entirely? Because the latter is off the table.