Syria: Al-Qaeda's New Home
- Thread starter JohnnyBoyUSMC
- Start date
Show of hands- anyone surprised this happened? Anyone? Anyone?
[crickets}
/rant
[crickets}
/rant
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,767
The situation is dire.. Something has to be done to prevent Syria getting into the hands of the fundamentalists.. If that means supporting Assad, so be it..
Brill
SOF Support
We missed our chance to assist a moderate anti-Assad government so now we should fund BOTH sides and let them have a grudge match. Our arms dealers can make some cash, the USG can collect more taxes than if we legalized pot, and it draws the jihadists to the Levant vice brining them here.
Kraut783
SOF Support
I support Assad....the region needs a strong government, not democracy....or Jihadist, who think taking down Assad is the first step to launching an offensive against Israel. Think Assad is getting a breather right now with all the infighting between FSA, ISIS/ISIL, JN, Al- Nusra....and many others.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,767
The west should have realized backing the opposition was going to be dangerous in terms of what the composition of them were made up of fundamentalists ..
Even if the FSA and other moderate groups succeed in winning, the fundamentalists will fight them to gain control which is a big fat lose for the west.
They will not stop fighting if Assad gets the boot.. This could be the start of another Afghanistan before 9/11..
The west dropped the ball on this one big time.
With closely monitoring what's occurring, do you think Geneva II will produce a workable outcome?
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,767
It will fail and fail again until they get concessions and then they will disagree just because they can.
I consider you a friend, and I know that you are sincerely asking professional opinion about this. That is why I will refrain from allegations as to the rapid ingestion of wholesale amounts of narcotics within the last 72 hours.
Geneva II will not amount to a hill of beans if Assad gets the boot and the factions really start to fighting with each other. The quickest way to bring together a large population is not through a common cause, but with a common enemy. Assad is that enemy. The Alawites are considered heretical by the two main factions of Islam, he has the audacity to run a secular government under the banner of the Ba'ath party, and he doesn't advocate the destruction of the indigenous Christian population in a manner that would make Adolf Hitler appear as docile as Mr. Rogers.
Once Assad is out of power, the fundamentalists will completely destroy any rebel factions that do not subscribe to their particular flavor of hardcore Islam. They will do it almost out of hand, because they are of a particular brand of ruthless that I can't even approach, and they use the narcotic of religious justification to ride the high of righteous indignation to victory. Once the lesser rebels have been cowed, they will turn on each other, Al Qaeda vs. Hezbollah, and there will be no clear victor because their collective consciences have been permanently anesthetized by their interpretations of the Koran, enabling the death and destruction to approach near genocidal proportions.
Geneva II was a covenant of men, not the Law of Allah. They would sooner follow a rabbi into a pork slaughterhouse and masturbate with bacon fat than abide by Geneva II.
Sometimes you have to let people fight it out before you can bring a long-lasting peace. Intervening too early, before a winner is apparent and frankly before the most ideologically motivated have a chance to kill each other off, and all you have is a perpetual, long-simmering conflict. This is especially true if foreign (i.e. US) aid is used to prop up the side who otherwise would be the losers.
I'm quite happy that the West (i.e. the US) didn't get involved militarily in a meaningful way in Syria right now. Currently we have Syrians, Iranians, Lebanese, foreign fighters, and maybe even Russians killing each other in Syria. The only thing we would have changed by going in on the ground is to add Americans to the list of people being killed.
I'm quite happy that the West (i.e. the US) didn't get involved militarily in a meaningful way in Syria right now. Currently we have Syrians, Iranians, Lebanese, foreign fighters, and maybe even Russians killing each other in Syria. The only thing we would have changed by going in on the ground is to add Americans to the list of people being killed.
No worries there RK! I was asking for points of view & I'm similarly inclined to take the above two posts as not disimilar to my views.
In all honesty, it's not too shocking that AQ appears to be thriving in this conflict in Syria; however, before the conflict broke out, Syria had already been a safe haven for AQ and extremists as Syria has been a failed state for sometime now. And General Dempsey/the Pentagon's policy of containment is working well enough. Like Marauder06 said, it's in our interest to even out the balance of power between rebel/extremist vs. the Syrian government and Russia. The primary focus is to only keep all of the conflict within Syria and not have Americans and Western Allies die in the process. As far as the rest of the "civil war" goes--it's all based on our interests. Any "long-lasting peace" won't be realized just for the benefit of the people of Syria unless it falls in line with what best benefits ourselves. My own realist/Machiavellian-influenced opinion.
V/R,
PM
V/R,
PM
Last edited:
Someone paid attention in the realism block of their IR class ;)
Brill
SOF Support
If, by containment, you mean go to Shams to learn the jihadi skills so they can export them back to their home turf, then I agree however the next shoe will fall when the place is awash with modern weapons and nobody to shoot at.
It'll going ugly before it gets better. IMO, all we're doing is ensuring that our 3rd graders will get to fight in the upcoming wars like our parents did during the Afghan wars. Let Israel finish off Iran so we can end this once and for all.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,767
I think it's gone beyond the best interest of the US.. It's in the best interest of the west to decide on what course of action to take and take it before it is too late. The moderate groups for all we know are in fact the same as AQ and their affiliates being presently "guided" by western agencies.
If this continues it might end up where by an intervention by the west is a necessity to prevent every Islamist in the world convening on Syria to get training.
Agree with both the above responses. Since first hearing of our "soft" interference in Syria, I never really could understand why we really even feel the need to do anything, much less perpetuate and contain the violence that's happening there. Would you both prefer us allowing Assad to fight a formerly weaker force of rebels, quell the rebels and thus avoid a future Iraq/Afghanistan? I'm not too opposed to that, but with the degree of responsibility we've taken in global governance and involvement in other nations' affairs, I just wonder if it's an inevitable trend we'll continue to follow for the coming decades. All to promote our best interest(or beyond). It would have been easier to be passive and let Assad handle the matter with Russia.
However...there is a small part of me that would be curious to see us later get involved in Syria, only to get use out of my rockets and fire volley after volley of ATACMS in what would be a very kinetic conflict. As it stands currently, I will never get to see such a spectacle in the field artillery.
However...there is a small part of me that would be curious to see us later get involved in Syria, only to get use out of my rockets and fire volley after volley of ATACMS in what would be a very kinetic conflict. As it stands currently, I will never get to see such a spectacle in the field artillery.
Last edited:
