• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Assad now in the driver's seat?

DA60

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Gwynne Dyer: Syrian peace talks increase in complexity

'...General Salim Idris, the commander of the Free Syrian Army (the main non-jihadi force on the battlefield), said last month that he and his allies were dropping the demand that Assad must leave power before the Geneva meeting convened. Instead, they would be content for Assad to go at the end of the negotiation process, at which time the FSA’s forces would join with those of the regime in an offensive against the Islamists.

He was actually signalling that the Free Syrian Army is getting ready to change sides. There will have to be amnesties and financial rewards for those who change sides, of course, but these things are easily arranged. And Assad will not leave power “at the end of the negotiation process.”'

Gwynne Dyer: Syrian peace talks increase in complexity | Georgia Straight, Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly
 
Of course he is. The non Islamist rebels have realized that the main military power other than Assad's forces is the Islamists. They also know that if Assad falls and the rebels win, then the Islamists will turn on their non-islamist allies.. they are already doing that. That is one of the reasons that Assad is winning... in-fighting among the rebels.

And Assad might not like the non-Islamist rebels, but they have a common enemy. Now will Assad turn on the non-Islamist rebels after eventually defeating the Islamists... depends on the horse-trading that can be done... after all the two sides have quite a lot in common. It could be that they split the country up administratively but keep the Syrian nation together... a federation type system. Who knows, a common enemy makes strange bedfellows.

Then again, Assad could just let the rebels fight it out and maybe help the non-islamists a bit and when the rebels have beaten each other to a pulp, then move in and clean up.
 
This is a classic case of "the enemy of my friend is my enemy, even if my friend is my enemy." Now, Assad and the FSA aren't exactly pals, but I think they both recognize the greater threat. No parties involved want a fundamentalist state.

Dammit, why can't more Middle East countries be like Jordan? You don't hear crap from the Jordanians.

I would not say Assad is in the driver's seat, but he's definitely not in the trunk like he was six months ago.
 
PeteEU said:
Of course he is. The non Islamist rebels have realized that the main military power other than Assad's forces is the Islamists. They also know that if Assad falls and the rebels win, then the Islamists will turn on their non-islamist allies.. they are already doing that. That is one of the reasons that Assad is winning... in-fighting among the rebels.

And Assad might not like the non-Islamist rebels, but they have a common enemy. Now will Assad turn on the non-Islamist rebels after eventually defeating the Islamists... depends on the horse-trading that can be done... after all the two sides have quite a lot in common. It could be that they split the country up administratively but keep the Syrian nation together... a federation type system. Who knows, a common enemy makes strange bedfellows.

Then again, Assad could just let the rebels fight it out and maybe help the non-islamists a bit and when the rebels have beaten each other to a pulp, then move in and clean up.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!
 
Kobie said:
This is a classic case of "the enemy of my friend is my enemy, even if my friend is my enemy." Now, Assad and the FSA aren't exactly pals, but I think they both recognize the greater threat. No parties involved want a fundamentalist state.

Dammit, why can't more Middle East countries be like Jordan? You don't hear crap from the Jordanians.

I would not say Assad is in the driver's seat, but he's definitely not in the trunk like he was six months ago.
Click to expand...

Yep, them Jordanians are quiet, thankfully. But then I don't recall a lot of noise and trouble out of Syria before SA and western powers stuck a stick in there and stirred it up, trying to capitalize on the Arab Spring to force an age old foreign policy agenda of Syrian regime change. But China and Russia have grown weary of such US foreign policy, the UK lost the stomach and anyway 70% of Americans said no. I think president Assad was always in the drivers seat, just not always going forward.:lol: That's also why I don't understand the criticism of Obama from the right on this one. I suppose they would have liked for him to pull some extra constitutional activity.
 
Assad has been caused deep problems by Iraqi refugees for about 10 years. He accepted those fleeing Iraq during the US led War of Terror against the Iraqis and quietly accepted those refugees and the costs and instabilities created by as many as 4 million refugees. Since Iraq hostilities resulted in many more Sunni refugees after al Maliki became el bosso profundo, it inherited the Islamic radicals associated with Sunnis. That would be al Qedas, etc. Instead of the USA thanking and helping Assad with a problem we created, we have actively supported insurrection against him. I think that makes us all "backstabbers."
 
PeteEU said:
Of course he is. The non Islamist rebels have realized that the main military power other than Assad's forces is the Islamists. They also know that if Assad falls and the rebels win, then the Islamists will turn on their non-islamist allies.. they are already doing that. That is one of the reasons that Assad is winning... in-fighting among the rebels.

And Assad might not like the non-Islamist rebels, but they have a common enemy. Now will Assad turn on the non-Islamist rebels after eventually defeating the Islamists... depends on the horse-trading that can be done... after all the two sides have quite a lot in common. It could be that they split the country up administratively but keep the Syrian nation together... a federation type system. Who knows, a common enemy makes strange bedfellows.

Then again, Assad could just let the rebels fight it out and maybe help the non-islamists a bit and when the rebels have beaten each other to a pulp, then move in and clean up.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
DaveFagan said:
Assad has been caused deep problems by Iraqi refugees for about 10 years. He accepted those fleeing Iraq during the US led War of Terror against the Iraqis and quietly accepted those refugees and the costs and instabilities created by as many as 4 million refugees. Since Iraq hostilities resulted in many more Sunni refugees after al Maliki became el bosso profundo, it inherited the Islamic radicals associated with Sunnis. That would be al Qedas, etc. Instead of the USA thanking and helping Assad with a problem we created, we have actively supported insurrection against him. I think that makes us all "backstabbers."
Click to expand...

Very interesting.

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting an international problem that Washington is at least partially responsible for creating - deliberately or otherwise.
 
DA60 said:
Very interesting.

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting an international problem that Washington is at least partially responsible for creating - deliberately or otherwise.
Click to expand...

This one is very deliberate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom