Talk Elections

A top national security adviser to President Obama vowed Friday that the United States would “do what is necessary” in Syria to protect American interests and said that direct military action was possible against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS.Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said ISIS had become an increased threat to the United States, a threat the American government was taking seriously.
“If you come against Americans, we are going to come after you,” Mr. Rhodes said.
He declined to say whether the president was considering expanding airstrikes to include ISIS targets in Syria as well as in Iraq, where raids began this month. “We’re actively considering what’s going to be necessary in dealing with that threat,” Mr. Rhodes said. “We’re not going to be restricted by borders.”
One of the true marks of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results = American foreign policy.
Sorry, but this revolving door of invasions and withdrawals is getting old and costing a lot of lives.

sage

According to the British newspaper The Independent there is already going on some cooperation of American and Syrian intelligence, involving also the German secret service BND.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/west-poised-to-join-forces-with-president-assad-in-face-of-islamic-state-9686666.html

Can we bomb some of Assad's military bases by "mistake"?

Good -it's about time.  We should destroy this organization root and branch.  And I doubt the Assad regime (and the other surviving rebel groups) will protest too much, even if we do bomb (ostensibly) Syrian soil. 

No. That would be counter-productive. You won't hear anyone in the Administration admit this but for all intents and purposes we are allies with the Assad regime against the Islamic State.

He may be a bastard, but he's the only real hope for a secular Syria. He's our bastard.

Assad has killed more people than the IS. I'd rather we destroy Assad first.

It's not that simple. I don't think you understand what a huge welfare check you would be handing The Islamic State by doing that.

I don't like the IS, but I don't like Assad more. He has butchered tens of thousands. The IS is hated by everyone and can't expand much more, only shrink. Especially once we kick them out of Iraq and their oil revenue dries up. Assad's the bigger threat.

Assad is just barely holding on to power in his own country.  ISIS is preaching global jihad that could reach out and conduct serious attacks not just in the M.E. but also in the West. There are many people rallying to their banner and you underestimate them at your own peril.

If Assad is just barely holding on, then all the more reason to shove him through the door first.

The IS may be preaching that, but there's a difference between preaching and doing. Yes, they are a more significant threat to the United States than Al Qaeda at this point, and probably will try to attack us. Which is why we need to hurry up and bring down Assad, so then we can go after the IS in Syria. We can go after them in Iraq for the meantime, though.

There's still room for them to expand in Syria if the Assad regime collapses.

Yeah, I mean they have a pretty compelling recruitment system in the conquered lands, join us or die. The bloody curdling tactics are quite successful spreading ideology. Many are also quite willing to join because they have been marginalized and attacked by their governments. More moderate elements naively thought  they could control the extremists but quickly became devoured by them. 

You want to create a power vacuum in Syria that ISIS will be able to jump right in and fill?

Sir, are you high?

What's wrong with leaving Assad in power, letting HIM get rid of IS in Syria and working with him to get rid of IS in Iraq?

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to the US? No. Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to Syria? Of course.

But it's not our job to look out for the best interests of the Syrian people. We're not a human rights brigade.

Indy, Starwatcher, you are neglecting or underestimating the consequences of an ISIS takeover on the Syrian people. The Shias, Christian and moderate Sunni communities would suffer just as they have in Iraq.  ISIS would cleanse them of their supposed sins. They could make Assad's barrel bombs seem tame.

     Like Israel had so much success destroying Hezbollah? Assuming you can just take out an organization like IS and developing policy on the assumption that it is inevitable is incredibly shortsighted, foolish, and irresponsible. This kind of hubris is everything that is wrong with American foreign policy, and then some. IS is far, far worse than Assad, and should be treated as such.

This is why I'm saying we need to leave Assad in power there and enable him to get IS out of Syria.

Starwatcher wants to remove Assad and fails to understand that all we'd be doing is creating yet another Iraq.

Indy, my point was against your the humans rights bit. IMO, It is in the best interests of the Syrian people that Assad stay in power and not ISIS. Ultimately, it is best that he transition out of power and some real federal, autonomous governments are sorted out in both these countries.

That's Hillary Clinton's views. With 20/20 hindsight, Hillary still thinks we should have armed the rebels, so I guess she decided her Iraq vote didn't screw things up enough there.  Maybe she can find some other area of the world to be completely wrong about instead?

To be fair, if we are willing to take the hero's road and put boots on the ground, then we won't need Assad. I think that's her plan.

Anyone who wants to fight ISIS and Assad at the same time is an idiot. If that's her plan, then it shows that she decided the only thing wrong with the Iraq war that she voted for was that it wasn't enough of a disaster. As for me, I don't vote for idiotic warmongers for President regardless of what party they claim to be in.

No guys, Hillary wanted to support the real good guys on the ground, the moderate rebels. And yes, there were moderate rebels. Now we're left with supporting a guy who gasses kids. I hope you're proud of that, jfern.

People always say Islamist this, Islamist that, but Starwatcher is right, Assad's killed far more than ISIS. The latest estimates for the death toll of the Syrian civil war is 191,000. It all started when Assad ordered his police forces to open fire on peaceful demonstrations. Ironic, considering what the left is screaming about in Ferguson now, demonstrations over one guy who robbed a convenience store and physically assaulted a police officer. But in Syria they're on the other side.

It's always "but oh no the Islamists." But as I said last year, if you look at Middle Eastern history, it's the secularists who have killed the most:


The West always think secular = Western-style liberal democracy, but that's no so. The Middle East is a difference place, if you give people democracy, they will vote in one form of Islamist government or other. That's why "secularists" always end up supporting the military thugs with the guns. And that's why they'll continue to lose support in the Middle East, because that will not win any hearts and minds.

ISIS is not a threat for one reason: no one likes them. Not even the people who live under them like them. It's sort of like communism: they may retain power for a long time through the barrels of their guns, but if they are too oppressive, eventually the people will rise up and demand change.

"Who killed more people" is beside the point, frankly. It's like saying Stalin was worse then Hitler because he had a higher raw body count. You're completely handwaving the fact that IS would probably kill even more if they had the capability.


Because the situation in Syria is much, much more complicated. The two don't even compare. It's not like people were supporting the Assad Regime during the initial uprisings, just more recently as the only plausible alternative to the Islamic State.


Again, this is ultimately beside the point.

It's funny you mention the Afghan communists, considering what happened after they lost. The communists losing that war was probably the worst thing that's happened to Afghanistan in a long time.


Except that's not what anybody said. Pure strawman.


Well, sometimes that's just the way it goes. The Arab world needs an Ataturk.

 

I don't think the concept of just crossing our fingers, hoping for this outcome while launching military strikes against Assad that will directly correlate to an increase in IS power and influence is a good foreign policy.

Sorry, but the idea of launching strikes against Assad at this time is just beyond absurd. I can't think of a bigger free lunch we could possibly give the Islamic State.

I'd rather have another Iraq than see Assad stay in power.

At least with him gone, there is hope for the Syrian people to choose their own destiny, and we can support the Free Syrian Army.

It's a false choice to say we must support one of these evils. Best to do what we can to destroy both.

Supporting Assad now would be admitting that the Middle East needs a bloodthirsty dictator to keep it in order. Admitting that some people are better off without democracy and human rights, that white Christians can handle democracy but brown Muslims can't, would be inhumane and disastrous. If that's the course the United States chooses, we deserve to lose.

We need to back the IS out of Iraq and back into Syria, then crush Assad, then help the FSA secure Syria.

(And let's not forget... letting Assad stay in a stalemate with the rebels for so long is what caused the IS to rise, and get pushed into Iraq once Assad was able to turn the tide.)

Nice to see we have a liberal pro-genocide poster here, it's rare opportunity to able discuss the pro and cons with genocide from a liberal democratic (as the ideology) POV.

?

Opposing both Assad and the IS makes me pro-genocide?

So we'd arm the "moderates" that McCain met who became ISIS members? Yeah, that would work real well for stopping ISIS.

Seeing as the result of those bombings would be that ISIS would be able to get their way with the minority enclaves and borderland in and close to their territories, yes so are the bombing of their defenders (the regime) pro-genocide.

But I guess it easier to base ones foreign policy views on feelings, rather than reading up on things.

Hillary in 2002:



http://themoderatevoice.com/197833/clintons-hawkish-statements-on-syria-remind-left-that-clinton-does-not-share-our-views-on-foreign-policy/

Lets not nominate a female Joe Lieberman as President.

Well it's these guys job to weigh in all options, so that means they're just doing their job. But it would be a great humiliation for the US or any European country (France and the UK were also very vocal about Assad) to suddenly change its mind, start helping Assad and to line up behind Russia and Iran. Anyone doing that could shut up about the Middle East for the next 50 years, so I think it's extremely unlikely.

Don't forget that Assad released islamists from his jails when the civil war started in order to present it as a war of Assad vs terrorists. I find it very worrying that many are ready to fall into his trap, and equally worrying that many start running around like headless chickens as soon as they hear "islamists".

Also the real threat for the West are people who go to Syria to fight, go back to their country, stay under the radar for 10 years and suddenly blow up a bomb somewhere. But this is very likely to happen, whatever happens in Syria.

Edit:
I just read this article and I agree with the conclusion:

http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2014/01/assad-accused-boosting-al-qaeda-syria-201412111174791389.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2014/01/assad-accused-boosting-al-qaeda-syria-201412111174791389.html)

Assad seems to be one of the main indirect backers of ISIS, through buying their oil.

The "realism" on display in this thread is not only entirely vapid but utterly boring.

Who were these "moderate" rebels? Do you seriously think you can build a sustainable political base of support from a handful of "moderates"?

Once elections were held, the Islamists would end up winning anyway.

That's what none of you get about the Middle East. If you want a government in power that's not going to either be hostile to the US or impose a backward-ass version of Islam, you pretty much have to either find a penniless royal dynasty to prop up (such as the Hashemites in Jordan) or find an ambitious field marshal and write him a check to stage a coup (Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr in Iraq in the 1960s; Abdel Fatah al-Sisi in Egypt last year).

Fine, Starwatcher. We'll let the Syrians be killed by a wide variety of armed thugs instead of be killed by one set of government-backed armed thugs. And we'll spend a bunch of American money to make that happen.

Look at what is happening to Christians and Yazidis in Iraq.

That's the fate you're asking for for the Alawites, Christians and Druze in Syria if you support removing Assad.

Give yourselves a pat on the back for supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Exactly.

The guys saying we must ally with Assad to defeat ISIS are falling into Assad's trap, and it would also destroy all of our moral credibility.




And your amorality is what's wrong with the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy. You're basically saying "those brown Muslims can't handle democracy."

Also, not all Islamists are like ISIS. So what if they win elections, as long as they respect human rights? Christian conservatives win elections here all the time.

The moderate rebels are the Free Syrian Army.

Somebody didn't understand anything I've posted.


Again, way to misunderstand me.

Also, if you go back a year or two, you'll see my position hasn't changed. Back in 2012, I was calling for the United States to bomb both Assad and any extremist rebels. If that had happened, the IS wouldn't be the threat it is today.

They can handle democracy - albeit probably an illiberal, ersatz version that's vulnerable to identity politics and tyranny of the majority. But they'll never produce the kind of governments that make the US happy and that we are willing to work with.

Palestine had elections once. Hamas won in a landslide. How'd that turn out? We had to thwart the will of the people and prop up the "moderate" Fatah government and elections haven't happened there in nearly a decade.

Egypt had elections. They voted for the Muslim Brotherhood. How'd that turn out? They're back to their old ways of having a military strongman in power.

Lebanon, arguably the most functionally democratic of the Arabic-speaking countries, is more or less ungovernable.

Some of this is our fault. And the British and the French. But I'm curious to know what is so different about Syria that you think "but this time it's going to be different."

The economy is better in Syria and, after the inevitable Ataturk/Rhee dictatorial era that the FSA would give Syria, they would be ready for limited democracy.

Syria publicly states it will help the US fight terrorism


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28927246 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28927246)


Good to see the US and Syria are buddies again.

It would be a deal with the devil, which we would regret in the future.

Better to deal with the devil we know than the devil we don't, which is what we'd get teaming up with your allegedly freedom-loving moderates.

In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to disarm Assad because he could have used those chemical weapons against ISIS. That would have slowed the operational tempo of the battlefield, but it would have given the anti-terrorism forces a boost.

I believe the opposite. The region is broken. Better to have a real change, than keep the awful status quo. You know keeping things the same will keep them awful, if there's change then there's hope.


1. The chemical weapons could have fallen into the IS's hands.
2. You would justify using chemical weapons against anyone? That's barbaric.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/middleeast/obama-syria-ISIS.html


Maybe we'll mainly go after ISIS forces who are fighting the Kurds.

No way was it a mistake to take those chemical weapons from a madman.

The hell?

Assad is not a madman though; he is simply a brutal dictator who would rather slaughter his country than give up power. While I agree that it is a good idea to take away his stockpile, the proliferation of WMDs amoung non-great powers is inherently destabilizing, we could perhaps let him lob a few at ISIS before he is totally disarmed.

Skepticism about bombing ISIS in Syria:

link (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/08/president_obama_shouldn_t_bomb_isis_in_syria_u_s_airstrikes_will_not_be.html)

My fear is that this is an Afghanistan late 90's-Sept 01 scenario. We have a very dangerous organization massed in large numbers and they wish to bring harm to our allies and the US. Now we are not going to solve the underlying problems by killing a bunch of ISIS members, but it is a target of opportunity.

There are no solution to the underlying problem, at least not one which should ever be acceptable.