• 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!

It’s time to rethink Syria

anatta

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,838
Reaction score
10,584
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I wish I could post the entire article. The author uses to support training a "Syrian moderate opposition"
( he's a former Obama advisor)-
but recognizes that was never viable . He calls for a new strategy, and I find his reasoning very valid.
"Assad must go" was always a stupid meme -considering the void of alternatives.

It’s time to rethink Syria – POLITICO

If somehow the tragic trajectory of the conflict in Syria were not apparent enough, several dramatic developments in recent weeks have come together to make it impossible to ignore. The most obvious is the influx into Europe of tens of thousands of desperate, hungry refugees—so devoid of hope in their homeland or neighboring refugee camps they are willing to risk drowning and starvation

The second is the growing evidence of the failure of efforts to train and equip a moderate, unified opposition capable of pressuring the Assad regime to change

The third sign was the news that Russia has decided to deploy its own forces in Syria—allegedly to fight ISIL but clearly also to bolster the Assad regime. The essential problem with U.S. Syria policy since the start of the crisis has been the mismatch between objectives and means
 
Stopping the conflict will require all the regional powers that are currently fueling it—including Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United States—to come to terms with the reality that their maximalist objectives cannot be achieved, and that the result of trying to achieve them will mean only more misery and conflict throughout the region—at high cost to them all.

Bringing together countries with such diametrically opposed views on the conflict will obviously require a Herculean diplomatic effort
( fr article -this is very well written)
 
i have no idea how to fix syria. i'm leaning towards the idea that things were probably best when the dictator had absolute power, because the alternative appears to be endless civil war or sharia law. ideally isis/al qaeda/assad would stop fighting, and free elections would be held. that's not going to happen, so the second best alternative is for us to test our new robots there. :cool:
 
QuadpolarNutjob said:
i have no idea how to fix syria. i'm leaning towards the idea that things were probably best when the dictator had absolute power, because the alternative appears to be endless civil war or sharia law. ideally isis/al qaeda/assad would stop fighting, and free elections would be held. that's not going to happen, so the second best alternative is for us to test our new robots there. :cool:
Click to expand...
it isn't fixable in current format. It has to be formulated and see how it goes.
Basically the regional players have to have a greater interest in a stable Syria,more then running their proxies.

It takes regional co-operation ( largely absent in the ME) - and Russia and the US have to come to an agreement on a framework.
That puts the 'process' in place at least , gets everyone on the same/similar page
 
The problem in Syria is primarily, IMO, ISIL. Stem the tide of the mass migration of refugees from Syria by stopping ISIL first. If other objectives can be accomplished, do them later.

Yeah, sharia law (also meaning bloodshed and tyranny) will always be possible in any primarily Islamic country. And compromise..well, no. That's usually a dictator's job in primarily Islamic countries (the US is catching up with that tendency).

If the US wishes to do anything to Assad, force him to quit his promotion of radical Islamic groups ways. Don't remove him.

If ISIL can be eliminated in Syria, not only will Syria be pleased but so will the European countries to which Syrian refugees are fleeing. Eliminate ISIL first.
 
Last edited:
I have observed that Syria was stable and a reasonably well developed Muslim Nation until the USA/CIA and Saudi Arabia began funding, training, and arming Islamic Fundamentalists to destabilize Syria. Well, now they have the destabilization and some group must profit handsomely from that because we are CORPORATISM in this Nation and thrive on war. History proves that point decisevly. Since we don't really have morons in our Intelligence Agencies, destabililzation must be the desired objective. Energy, pipelines, ports, big Banking, etc. will be the controlling fingers of the puppet's strings. Mussolini said Corporatism and Fascism were the same. I think he would know. What happened and is happening in Libya is what the USA is trying to do in Syria. Shameful, eh?
 
Of course, solely, stopping ISIL in Syria first might entail putting some US boots on the ground. Don't think many dems will applaud this.
 
A previous attempt to destabilize Syria might have been attempted because of Assad's propensity to 'promote' radical Islamic forces in the region. Maybe Assad does this to placate his people? Should a more 'peaceable' replacement to Assad be promoted? Would that peaceable replacement create strife and violence in a primarily Muslim nation? Chicken or egg?

Hasn't the US learned the lesson of Iraq? What is the lesson of Iraq?
 
Syrian civil war started on it's own; not food riots directly,but more a crackdown by Assad on a bunch of demonstrators...
really all part of the Arab Spring.

I t wasn't the CI or Saudi Arabia -though no doubt the Saudis ( really more so Qatar) did the funding.
But Iran does the same for Assad/Hezbollah.....

anyways..all this looking back doesn't help..Look at it now instead. If we could get the US to quit "Assad must go" stupidity,
and the Russians to check Iranian mischief, then maybe we could influence the Gulf states....

Really there isn't a plan, it has to work itself out, but as it does there needs to be some sort of coordination as to shape events as they unfold.
 
The US needs to crystalize its goals in Syria, first. Get rid of ISIL. Coordinate with the Russians, if need be. The US can't seem to keep the Russians out of Syria.

Side note: The US can't seem to keep the Iranians out of Iraq, either. I've always wondered if the Iranian nuke deal brokered with the US was a fig leaf to Iran so Iran would 'help' in the war against ISIL in Iraq.

The US certainly has willing armies to fight ISIL in the middle east. Question is: does the US want those armies and their influence in the middle east?
 
Last edited:
Does Israel want those armies and their influence in the middle east?
 
annata said:
"Assad must go" was always a stupid meme -considering the void of alternatives.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ on this. The US is not demanding that the entire Syrian government be dismantled, only that a man who is despised even by people who support the regime give up power. My guess is that most FSA and many Islamists would lay down arms or defect to the SAA if Assad were to be removed. In my opinion, a good peace deal would remove Assad from power and grant him immunity from being tried for war crimes (out of necessity, not because he's not deserving of punishment), have the rebel factions that agreed to the deal join the SAA and drive al-Nusra and ISIS out of the country, and appoint a high-ranking but fairly uncontroversial Sunni regime official to act as transitional president with future elections promised. Democratizing the country, dismantling the Shabiha and neutering the mukhabarat would be ideal consequences to this deal, but it's also possible that such a solution would merely create another Egypt - authoritarian but not grotesquely tyrannical.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
I beg to differ on this. The US is not demanding that the entire Syrian government be dismantled, only that a man who is despised even by people who support the regime give up power. My guess is that most FSA and many Islamists would lay down arms or defect to the SAA if Assad were to be removed. In my opinion, a good peace deal would remove Assad from power and grant him immunity from being tried for war crimes, have the rebel factions that agreed to the deal join the SAA and drive al-Nusra and ISIS out of the country, and appoint a high-ranking but fairly uncontroversial Sunni regime official act as transitional president. Democratizing the country, dismantling the Shabiha and neutering the mukhabarat would be ideal consequences to this deal, but it's also likely that such a solution would merely create another Egypt - authoritarian but not grotesquely tyrannical.
Click to expand...

I greatly respect your knowledge of the players in Syria, and your ability to game scenarios.
So I'm just going to take your analysis as a given here.

My question to you though is how Assad can be separated from 'the regime'? Even if somehow he could be persuaded to resign.
Do you recall that interview Bashar gave to Barbara Walters TRANSCRIPT: ABC's Barbara Walters' Interview With Syrian President Bashar al-Assad - ABC News

and another to U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich ( below)



I saw them both, and Bashar was adamant he was legitimate, and democratic , and a reformer for his people fighting 'terrorism' ..
I do not think he would ever resign, and I also do not think anyone in that gov't could succeed him and hold power
 
annata said:
I greatly respect your knowledge of the players in Syria, and your ability to game scenarios.
So I'm just going to take your analysis as a given here.
Click to expand...
Don't give me too much credit :lol: I'm just a college student who happens to read about this on Reddit way too much. I rarely read past the headlines, and although I know more about this than people who have no interest, I am by no means an expert.

My opinion on Assad's support is based on the analysis of others who follow the conflict: the minorities (Druze, Alawites, Christians) who support the regime generally do so because they (rightly) fear that a rebel takeover would result in expulsions, oppression and genocide, not because of any heartfelt personal loyalty to Assad. They too dislike the corruption and repression that the regime practices - even Alawites have protested against Assad, in 2015, in Latakia - but see these flaws as better than being slaughtered. Most regime supporters on Reddit who aren't dumb trolls seem to have this attitude, and I've only seen one or two people who are completely supportive of the regime's style of governance.
My question to you though is how Assad can be separated from 'the regime'? Even if somehow he could be persuaded to resign.
Do you recall that interview Bashar gave to Barbara Walters TRANSCRIPT: ABC's Barbara Walters' Interview With Syrian President Bashar al-Assad - ABC News

and another to U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich ( below)



I saw them both, and Bashar was adamant he was legitimate, and democratic , and a reformer for his people fighting 'terrorism' ..
I do not think he would ever resign, and I also do not think anyone in that gov't could succeed him and hold power
Click to expand...


I have not seen those interviews; I should probably check them out later. In my opinion, Assad refuses to consider leaving power because the complete collapse of the regime has never been imminent. If it was - and this is a reason why I support aiding the rebels, since that will force him to take negotiations seriously - he'd probably give up power just to avoid meeting the same fate as Gaddafi. As for who his successor would be, from what I understand (and I could be wrong about this) he's not an incredibly personal ruler, as opposed to Gaddafi, Saddam or even his father. There is more likely than not a technocratic apparatchik within the government that could at least temporarily take the mantle as president in place of Assad.
 
MadLib said:
Don't give me too much credit :lol: I'm just a college student who happens to read about this on Reddit way too much. I rarely read past the headlines, and although I know more about this than people who have no interest, I am by no means an expert.

My opinion on Assad's support is based on the analysis of others who follow the conflict: the minorities (Druze, Alawites, Christians) who support the regime generally do so because they (rightly) fear that a rebel takeover would result in expulsions, oppression and genocide, not because of any heartfelt personal loyalty to Assad. They too dislike the corruption and repression that the regime practices - even Alawites have protested against Assad, in 2015, in Latakia - but see these flaws as better than being slaughtered. Most regime supporters on Reddit who aren't dumb trolls seem to have this attitude, and I've only seen one or two people who are completely supportive of the regime's style of governance.


I have not seen those interviews; I should probably check them out later. In my opinion, Assad refuses to consider leaving power because the complete collapse of the regime has never been imminent. If it was - and this is a reason why I support aiding the rebels, since that will force him to take negotiations seriously - he'd probably give up power just to avoid meeting the same fate as Gaddafi. As for who his successor would be, from what I understand (and I could be wrong about this) he's not an incredibly personal ruler, as opposed to Gaddafi, Saddam or even his father. There is more likely than not a technocratic apparatchik within the government that could at least temporarily take the mantle as president in place of Assad.
Click to expand...

as you correctly point out the minority Alawite coalition supports him by default. It's possible an apparatchik could replace him.
But I don't think he would resign, he takes his job seriously ( yes watch the interviews), and the regime isn't really amendable to popping up someone else.

The regimes problem is manpower -if you look at the refugees there are a lot of draft age men.
I don't know where he is getting army replacements, or how long he can last. Maybe something is going on behind the scenes.

Supporting the rebels ( FSA /Syrian Coalition -whatever they're called) is our position by default.
But last time I looked they were the least powerful. The Islamist are prolly 1st, then ISIL,but only in it's region. Or maybe Hezbollah
since they are good soldiers. al-Nusra ( Islamists) are the immediate threat to Assad.

Now with Russia in with actual Iranian troops..it looks like this is going to grind on.
But the reason I do not support the rebels is they have never been able to hold ground, or even their weapons.
I don't see them as cohesive, more ad hoc on a brigade level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom