• 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 Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tactic?

Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tactic?


  • Total voters
    16
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, relayed this information in a press conference. And I believe Obama did as well, I'll try to find a link.

Don't bother, sweetie, I was just curious. It's not worth more of your time. :)
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Did you actually read the articles available on the front page of their website? The headlines alone were enough to see where they were coming from.

I've read the articles, and while the titles seem provocative, I don't see the bias in the writing itself.

:shrug: Maybe I'm just biased to my own sources. If you could point it out, I'd be very much appreciative.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

I've read the articles, and while the titles seem provocative, I don't see the bias in the writing itself.

:shrug: Maybe I'm just biased to my own sources. If you could point it out, I'd be very much appreciative.

I've pointed out my interpretation of what I saw. You have no obligation whatsoever to agree with that interpretation. :)
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

I've pointed out my interpretation of what I saw. You have no obligation whatsoever to agree with that interpretation. :)

Fair enough.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

I've pointed out my interpretation of what I saw. You have no obligation whatsoever to agree with that interpretation. :)

I posted that video because that is what that man called it, and that analysis got me thinking so i decided to post the poll to see what the rest of the DP community thinks.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Reading your link, I found this:




While it has representatives from the various factions of the rebels, I do not have enough data to see how close it is with the Islamist elements.

"The level of coordination between these armed groups and the SMC varies group-to-group."

I'll need to read up some more before I can go on ChrisL.

Here is a chart from my link. Hope you can see it okay. If not, it is available in the article. It pretty much breaks down all the different groups involved. That is why it's so dangerous for us to become involved in these altercations. We really don't know who the "good" guys are.

SyriaOpposition.jpg
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Here is a chart from my link. Hope you can see it okay. If not, it is available in the article. It pretty much breaks down all the different groups involved. That is why it's so dangerous for us to become involved in these altercations. We really don't know who the "good" guys are.

View attachment 67148909

ChrisL, upon reading your article you linked I must question the facts it contains.

First off, it sates "The Syrian Opposition Coalition and SMC are designed to impose a top-down national strategy and governing structure for the political and military arms of the Syrian opposition,"

This is misleading: the SMC is not a top-down organization, it is the opposite.

"Its legitimacy is derived from the bottom-
up, rather than top-down, and it has no institutional legitimacy apart from the legitimacy of the commanders associated with the council. Thus, the SMC is not structurally cohesive, and its ability to enforce command and control is dependent on the cooperation of each of its members. The incorporation of rebel networks has resulted in chains of command that are not uniform across the five fronts, with each sub-unit retaining their own unique authority structures. "

Source: http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/The-Free-Syrian-Army-24MAR.pdf

I believe The Institute for the Study of War is correct on this, as the SMC is a coordination effort, not really a combined military chain of command.

Secondly, I believe the map (Chart? Graph?) you showed oversimplifies the complex relations between the Supreme Joint Military Command and the various subgroups.

Furthermore, also from the .pdf I linked, "The SMC has the potential to serve as a check on radicalization and help to assert a moderate authority in Syria. If the SMC can create enough incentives for moderation it will likely be able to marginalize the most radical elements within its structure. To this end, the SMC has recognized the importance of the inclusion of some of the more radical forces, while still drawing a red line at the inclusion of forces that seek the destruction of a Syrian state, such as jihadist groups like Jabhat nusra."

Back to your image (picture?) it does make a point of showing the connection between the SMC and the subgroups. Take note how the Free Syrian Army (Leadership Incorporated, by the way) has a stronger bond than the Syrian Islamic Front. This is a good sign, because the FSA has reportedly had difficulties with the jihadists groups like these.

Source: Inside Jabhat al Nusra - the most extreme wing of Syria's struggle - Telegraph

and

With wary eye, Syrian rebels welcome Islamists into their ranks | The Times of Israel

Obviously, neither of us can be certain, seeing as the announcement for the arming of the SMC was very recent. Nevertheless, I feel those who make the claim "We are arming Islamists/Extremists" to be a bit far fetched.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Do you believe that Obama's public support for the Syrian Rebels by arming them a diversionary foreign policy tactic?

To get an idea watch this short video: Escobar: Obama starts Syria war to deviate from Snowden scandal - YouTube

Do you think its a tactic or do you think its tactic used by the Obama admin?

thx my favorite american

if it was me who started it ,many would begin to claim USA has nothing to do with syria ,:lol:
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

The US is arming only the Supreme Military Council, a collection of rebel forces that excludes Islamist elements.


So those who hate America have no way of acquiring arms sent to rebel forces? :lamo
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

When Assad is toppled, Syria will become an Islamic theocracy. Of that I am certain, although I'd love to be wrong. Once Assad is gone, the civil war will turn into a religious war between Sunni and Shiia. No matter which wins, it will be bad for Syria and bad for the world, and if the Shiia win... which it most likely will given the Shiia majority there, it will be worse, because they will have instant allies in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, among others.

This is just a gut feeling, because I do not have the educational depth about the region to give an informed and sourced opinion on the topic. I did, however, accurately predict the long-term outcome in both Afghanistan and Iraq ten years ago... so I kinda-sorta trust my gut on this stuff. ;)
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Μολὼν λαβέ;1061932192 said:
so those who hate america have no way of acquiring arms sent to rebel forces? :lamo

idk.

.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

When Assad is toppled, Syria will become an Islamic theocracy.

Not necessarily. Most likely the FSA will fight the Jihadists.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Not necessarily. Most likely the FSA will fight the Jihadists.

And they will lose. :shrug:
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

As mean as he is, Assad provides stability.

Stability with Israel, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon.

Why would we want to lose that stability?
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

And they will lose. :shrug:

Really? The FSA outnumbers the Syrian Islamic Front and the Al-Nusra front combined. Not to mention, if anyone is getting American weapons, it's the FSA. They stand a solid chance.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Really? The FSA outnumbers the Syrian Islamic Front and the Al-Nusra front combined. Not to mention, if anyone is getting American weapons, it's the FSA. They stand a solid chance.

I genuinely hope that you are right.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

As mean as he is, Assad provides stability.

Stability with Israel, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon.

Why would we want to lose that stability?

l have to agree
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

When Assad is toppled, Syria will become an Islamic theocracy. Of that I am certain, although I'd love to be wrong. Once Assad is gone, the civil war will turn into a religious war between Sunni and Shiia. No matter which wins, it will be bad for Syria and bad for the world, and if the Shiia win... which it most likely will given the Shiia majority there, it will be worse, because they will have instant allies in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, among others.

This is just a gut feeling, because I do not have the educational depth about the region to give an informed and sourced opinion on the topic. I did, however, accurately predict the long-term outcome in both Afghanistan and Iraq ten years ago... so I kinda-sorta trust my gut on this stuff. ;)

l agree diana

thats why l have been trying to draw attention to fake springs .
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Do you believe that Obama's public support for the Syrian Rebels by arming them a diversionary foreign policy tactic?

To get an idea watch this short video: Escobar: Obama starts Syria war to deviate from Snowden scandal - YouTube

Do you think its a tactic or do you think its tactic used by the Obama admin?

"Obama starts Syria war"....not very accurate is it? Or do we need war to only exist if we can throw America into the mix? Those almost 100,000 dead Muslims at the hands of other Muslims over the last two years didn't really happen? No matter the slaughter we call it "peace" until the U.S.A. gets involved?

Muslims started the Syrian War two years ago. Muslims started the Arab Spring years before that. The joke amongst people seem to be how they are completely oblivious to what they actually stand for. People criticize the U.S. for its dictator support during the Cold War in the name of stability. The same people criticize the U.S. for taking out one of the last standing dictators. And the same people criticize the Arab Spring because religious nuts stand the chance of rising to temporary powers or theocracies. And what have we now? People criticize the U.S. for not supporting the Syrian dictator like Russia is. The way I see it, these hypocritical critics want the U.S. to support dictators over Muslims with a reservation of bitching about it later in order to feign a sense of good morality.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

As mean as he is, Assad provides stability.

Stability with Israel, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon.

Why would we want to lose that stability?

Because it's that "stability" that has bred so much Muslim anger and rage towards the West, specifically America, that manifests itself in mass organized terrorism. 9/11 was a symptom of a disease that Cold War "stability" encouraged. Muslims slaughter upon Muslims throughout the region is tribally based and has been encouraged through elitist preaching that has been protected under the individuals of that "stability."

The "stability" you are referring to is fleeting and always was. Sooner or later the individuals that enforce and regulate that "stability" have to contend with a rising discontent in the population that erupts in revolution, coup, and rebellion. And when they need someone to blame for how powerful those individuals who slaughter them are they merely look West and groom radical extremists.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

What about his little "talks" with Ahmadinejad? He certainly isn't taking a hard line approach in a lot instances, and I don't think his foreign policies have proven to be successful at all. Besides, we can't fix those countries. It's only a matter of time before there is another problem. A lot of them are just lost causes IMO, and I also think that in a lot of cases, the citizens of those countries should be the ones to overthrow their dictators if that's what they want.

I was just thinking that we have supported or put more dictators in power than dictators we've taken out ...
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

...... Let Syria sort itself out.

A simple slogan that works for simple problems.

Syria isn't sorting itself out is it? Syria has had events border events that threatened Turkey's involvement. Turkey is a member of NATO, which would involve others. Syria has also had Hezbollah, financed by Iran, get involved. Israel has bombed into Syria to attack Hezbollah fighters who are gun running. Hezbollah is based in Lebanon. When will Syrian forces attack Hezbollah camps in Lebanon? So what we have here is a local civil issue in Syria that has, so far, involved Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, and Israel. And of course Russia has been supplying arms to the Syrian government. Right before your very eyes you are witnessing an escalation of countries into what seemed to be something very minor.

Sort itself out? You sound like the many people in the first half of the 20th century who insisted that small problems in Europe need only to sort itself out. Perhaps we should do nothing and pretend that we can go untouched as the region explodes into World War. That way, we can spend far more and bleed more for what should have been tackled when it was more manageable.
 
Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

I was just thinking that we have supported or put more dictators in power than dictators we've taken out ...

That was Cold War mentality. That's over and has been for a very, very long time. People's mistake continues to be to pretend that we are forever stuck during that Cold War. Watching the Arab Spring take down these instruments of "stability" is exactly what we needed to do. If they slaughter each other along their way to more successful democracies, so be it. It's their culture. The sooner they are forced to take responsibility for their own civilization's failure the better and they weren't ever going to do it under Western supported dictators.
 
Back
Top Bottom