Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[JMA]

LOL ... nice try... now go read what Samatha Power has said (for starters)

Your disinclination to reply is of course understandable. If I'd made a comment like this...



...and somebody asked me who exactly the US is "supposed to be protecting" (somebody would ask; it's too obvious a question not to ask) I wouldn't want to reply either.

[JMA]

Back in 2012 I said the Syrian rebels should not be armed. Here

The result of arming the rebels is plain for all to see. The genie is out of the bottle. Idiots.

Edward Luttwak wrote the following article in the NYT: In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins in August 2013

A well argued article spoilt by the paragraph near the end.

This strategy actually approximates the Obama administration’s policy so far. Those who condemn the president’s prudent restraint as cynical passivity must come clean with the only possible alternative: a full-scale American invasion to defeat both Mr. Assad and the extremists fighting against his regime.

I suggest rather that the 'Obama policy' is as a result of dithering and indecisiveness rather than by design.

Luttwak is obviously wrong in suggesting that the only military response is 'a full-scale American invasion'.

How is it possible that otherwise intelligent people can't appreciate that a poke in the eye with a sharp stick can be more effective than numerous kicks to the shins?

[CrowBat]

Back in 2012 I said the Syrian rebels should not be armed. Here

The result of arming the rebels is plain for all to see. The genie is out of the bottle. Idiots.

I have no problems with the DC deciding 'do not arm the insurgents'.

But then at least the same DC could come to its senses and stay completely out of the situation. After all - just ask Dayuhan, he'll be happy to explain it to lenght - there are 745.396 (probably 745.397 meanwhile) reasons to stay out of there.

Instead, they are following the WORST POSSIBLE SOLUTION, which is, 'well, we're going to arm them, a little bit', and doing so while doing even more to hinder others from 'arming the insurgents'. Coupled with bi-products of such behaviour (see 'let the Iranians kill insurgents' and see 'let Russians re-arm the regime, Iranians are bledding themselves to death by paying the bill'), that's just resulting in ever more suffering and destruction.

As such, effectivelly, that cannot but result with 'creating your own enemy of tomorrow' - which is insane, to put it mildly.

[JMA]

I have no problems with the DC deciding 'do not arm the insurgents'.

Well who knows what the WH is thinking? Does anyone? Do they themselves?

See this:

Advanced U.S. Weapons Flow to Syrian Rebels

But then at least the same DC could come to its senses and stay completely out of the situation.

Too late... up to their elbows in blood and getting deeper. Clearly the situation is now so serious and complex that its beyond the WH... and probably the 'analysts' at the CIA too.

After all - just ask Dayuhan, he'll be happy to explain it to lenght - there are 745.396 (probably 745.397 meanwhile) reasons to stay out of there.

I call that the 'condom solution' ... instead of one size fits all, rather one policy (in this case hiding under your bed) fits all situations regardless of the situation on the ground.

Instead, they are following the WORST POSSIBLE SOLUTION, which is, 'well, we're going to arm them, a little bit', and doing so while doing even more to hinder others from 'arming the insurgents'. Coupled with bi-products of such behaviour (see 'let the Iranians kill insurgents' and see 'let Russians re-arm the regime, Iranians are bledding themselves to death by paying the bill'), that's just resulting in ever more suffering and destruction.

As such, effectivelly, that cannot but result with 'creating your own enemy of tomorrow' - which is insane, to put it mildly.

This, I suggest, is as a result of having no policy to start with. The situation has spun out of control and we now see a misguided and misdirected patch-job in a desperate attempt to control the damage.

The situation should never have got to this... it now demands action which will be resisted by Russia... which means the US won't do it.

[CrowBat]

Yup. And to paraphrase certain ex Secretary of State, and in relation to your earlier post about ideas on 'China should do it': 'You can't force your bank to...' - launch (or finance) an armed intervention in Syria.

Really, I haven't been to the USA and the DC for some eight years or so. But if this - and other ideas of similar 'brilliance' aired from there in recent years can be taken as anything as indication of way people there are thinking...

...oh boy, we're up to eyebrows deep in... erm...trouble.

[JMA]

Canadian-funded study explores how foreign fighters in Syria use social media

Based on the data, the report found that a large number of foreign fighters receive their information about the Syrian conflict through so-called disseminators – “unaffiliated but broadly sympathetic individuals who can sometimes appear to offer moral and intellectual support to jihadist opposition groups.”

[wm]

Canadian-funded study explores how foreign fighters in Syria use social media
Quote:
Based on the data, the report found that a large number of foreign fighters receive their information about the Syrian conflict through so-called disseminators – “unaffiliated but broadly sympathetic individuals who can sometimes appear to offer moral and intellectual support to jihadist opposition groups.”

What I find most interesting is this quotation from the article:

ICSR has previously reported that up to 2,800 of foreign fighters in Syria are of European or western nationality.

The report gives a breakdown of the foreign fighters’ country of origin based on their sample: Australians, Canadians and Americans together accounted for 5.3 per cent, while fighters from the United Kingdom made up the highest number of foreign fighters.
United Kingdom: 17.9 per cent
France: 11.6 per cent
Germany: 11.1 per cent
Sweden: 10 per cent
Belgium: 8.9 per cent

This set of statistics seems to support the following claim made recently in this thread--that Syria's conflict is drawing the loons there rather than their staying and acting out at home. I've paraphrased, but the gist is the same I think. The original wording is found at post 590 of this thread