Consolidated Syria Conflict Thread

[JasonPratt]

^^ Not that that means he's going to be actually fighting ISIS any time soon. Priorities, yo.

(I suppose from one strategic perspective it makes sense for 'supporting Assad' to be the first priority.)

The Soviet Russia quotes never get old :)

In Neo-Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris doesn't go to pot, Putin scares crap out of Chuck Norris!

(...trying to decide if I did that right...)

[Centurion40]

Interesting analysis of Putin.

From the Russian point of view, America has a president who is not decisive and who is reluctant to commit forces. So when the Russians look at Washington, they feel that these people make verbal commitments to do things, like getting rid of [the Islamic State group], sending in air strikes, blah, blah, blah, but actually there aren't really results. Whereas Putin, what does he see? He doesn't see a best option here.

To him, the worst option is the collapse of Assad's regime and the dominance of Syria and the Near East by a fanatical, fundamental Islamic terrorist outfit. So he sees himself as having to get his hands dirty there, to do what he thought the Americans might possibly do for him. He's realized that no one else is going to this.

source: http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/10/14/russias-spies-are-critical-to-putins-operations-in-syria-ukraine

Don't think the Russians aren't concerned about Islamic radicals. They've been fighting a war against them in Chechnya for the past two decades, and they have suffered several major terrorist attacks from Islamic (Chechen) radicals during that time, many of them right in the capitol. Remember the theater attack in Moscow? The school in southern Russia? Those were only the two most spectacular attacks. There have been multiple apartment building and subway station bombings in Moscow and other attacks elsewhere. Don't assume just because Putin has other motives that he doesn't also want to see ISIS dead.

Furthermore, the majority of Chechens are Muslims, and the majority of Chechen Muslims are Sunni Muslims (same with Dagestan).  ISIS is composed of Sunni Muslims.  Therefore the Russians have no interest in Chechen Sunnis making and alliance with ISIS or seeking to join with the ISIS Caliphate.  Russia making pacts with Shi'ite/Shia Muslim nations makes sense.

[Airborne Rifles]

(I suppose from one strategic perspective it makes sense for 'supporting Assad' to be the first priority.)

Right now, supporting Assad is just about the only realistic strategy for defeating ISIS, unfortunately.

[Centurion40]

(I suppose from one strategic perspective it makes sense for 'supporting Assad' to be the first priority.)

Right now, supporting Assad is just about the only realistic strategy for defeating ISIS, unfortunately.

It is very unfortunate.

[mirth]

(I suppose from one strategic perspective it makes sense for 'supporting Assad' to be the first priority.)

Right now, supporting Assad is just about the only realistic strategy for defeating ISIS, unfortunately.

I agree. There was a window for getting rid of Assad and we let it pass.

[Centurion40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi#/media/File:Madhhab_Map3.png

[JasonPratt]

^^ Coming next year from Funimation: MUSLIM AXIS HENTALIA

[The Puss]

Right now, supporting Assad is just about the only realistic strategy for defeating ISIS, unfortunately.

How about pissing off Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria in one fell swoop by supporting the Kurds with as much military support and weapons as the West can muster?

Guaranteed to pull the rug from under Putin's feet but I doubt there is a Western leader with the balls to do it. 

[Gusington]

The Russians have been kicking around Chechnya for the better part of 4 centuries IIRC.

[GDS_Starfury]

its time for GusTeamSeal!

[jejo68]

(I suppose from one strategic perspective it makes sense for 'supporting Assad' to be the first priority.)

Right now, supporting Assad is just about the only realistic strategy for defeating ISIS, unfortunately.

I agree. There was a window for getting rid of Assad and we let it pass.

So why exactly do we want to get rid of Assad ?
He has never posed any danger to the western world, and look what is happening now. You think removing him from power will turn things better ?

[Grimnirsson]

You think removing him from power will turn things better ?

Sure, let's try out this strategy again, perhaps this time it might work...remember what happened when Saddam Hussein was removed? And Gaddafi killed? That's what Putin is telling the world, we can not make the same mistake over and over, to remove the official power in such a country is simply opening Pandora's Box.

[bayonetbrant]

You think removing him from power will turn things better ?

Sure, let's try out this strategy again, perhaps this time it might work...remember what happened when Saddam Hussein was removed? And Gaddafi killed? That's what Putin is telling the world, we can not make the same mistake over and over, to remove the official power in such a country is simply opening Pandora's Box.

I think the larger issue is that in every case there's no credible national-level opposition that could take the reins and maintain any sense of unity among the population to hold the country together.  A significant problem with "strongman" governments is that challengers don't last long, so none exist when you're ready to remove the ruler.  Even in Zimbabwe, where there's been credible opposition to Mugabe over the years, would have a hard time replacing his gov't authority with an opposition leader b/c even if they exist, like Tsvangirai, they don't have enough competent supporters to fulfill all the gov't duties that need filling.  We have no plan to fill the vacuum, and we've seen how well that works out, as you noted.

[LongBlade]

You think removing him from power will turn things better ?

Sure, let's try out this strategy again, perhaps this time it might work...remember what happened when Saddam Hussein was removed? And Gaddafi killed? That's what Putin is telling the world, we can not make the same mistake over and over, to remove the official power in such a country is simply opening Pandora's Box.

I think the larger issue is that in every case there's no credible national-level opposition that could take the reins and maintain any sense of unity among the population to hold the country together.  A significant problem with "strongman" governments is that challengers don't last long, so none exist when you're ready to remove the ruler.  Even in Zimbabwe, where there's been credible opposition to Mugabe over the years, would have a hard time replacing his gov't authority with an opposition leader b/c even if they exist, like Tsvangirai, they don't have enough competent supporters to fulfill all the gov't duties that need filling.  We have no plan to fill the vacuum, and we've seen how well that works out, as you noted.

Following up on Brant's post - overthrowing a strong man isn't a five year mission. If you intend to do it properly you're going to occupy for years and years. Look at Germany post WWII. How long was it formally occupied? How long after were there troops stationed there post transition?

If you're going to do an Iraq or Astan or Libya you can't pull the troops out after the new president is sworn into office. They need to be there for a while to help shore up the new government.

[Airborne Rifles]

From what I understand it is not actually the US who really wants Assad gone. It's, once again, the Turks. Recall that there has been a NATO mission in Turkey since 2012 consisting of Patriot batteries from several alliance members to supplement the air defense of Turkey: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_92555.htm?

These are there because Turkey felt threatened by Assad after a Turkish jet was shot down and Turkish civilians were killed by shelling from across the border.

I agree with you all that going around deposing national governments is a bad idea, and it's almost certainly a bad idea in this case as well. But there are competing interests, and keeping NATO together by supporting a member state that feels threatened is one interest that will most likely continue to trump all others.