Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[CrowBat]

I haven't seen anyone teach such a thing.

No surprise: you only missed half the things that have happened in the Middle East since nearly 70 years...

Syria is not "a nation of crazy terrorists"...

Next time I'm there and happen to run over any kind of US tourists (is unlikely to happen any time soon, of course, but you ought to be patient when things are about Syria), I'll ask them for their telephone numbers or e-mail addresses. Then I'll forward these to you so you can ask them - and hear with your own ears - what they've been told by their family, friends etc. when informing them they're about to do a trip to Syria.

...but a Syrian civil war with active Western intervention would be an irresistible and accessible magnet for crazy terrorists from anywhere else. It would also provide a convenient and attractive target for the crazy terrorists...

Ah, I see: you're back to tell me a few jokes again.

Tell me: Syria didn't become 'an irresistible and accessible magnet for crazy terrorists'? And this didn't happen precisely because of....what idiotic reason is now going to come to your mind...?

Certainly the Syrian Civil War will attract its share of crazies even without Western involvement...

Ah, you - the very person that is so much in love with complaining about anybody trying to 'guess the future' - is now predicting the future, and say 'it will'?

Because you don't think it didn't do so - already?

...and certainly those crazies and their future activities are a problem, but any argument that intervention would have prevented, rather than exacerbated, that problem would be extraordinarily speculative.

While your argumentation is based on legs as solid as a card tower, eh?

I can't see any basis at all for a claim that the Syrian Civil War is a consequence of American or Western actions and therefore an American or Western "responsibility".

Oh, anybody trying to say 'this is what caused the war' is simply stupid. That's sure. But, sigh... well somebody like you, somebody who is trying to discuss the developments in Syria, and especially somebody doing that and being from the USA, sigh.... gosh, this is so boring to explain for XYth time, especially to people so insistent on proving completely unable to think and learn... might want to recall all the BS caused by Bush Sr.'s calls for Iraqis to raise against Saddam, back in March-April 1991, and then what has his failure to support the Iraqis that rose caused over the time.

(And no, I'm not worried: you're now certainly going to come back with some sort of hyper-eloquent explanation for why there is no need for you - or anybody else in all of the USA - to learn anything from that, and so many other, similar examples.)

Who exactly is the US "supposed to be protecting" in Syria?

Ah, yes: there are no 'civilians' in Syria. 'Terrorists parking only' there...

Well, no problem. Let the Iranians, Hezbollah and a regime that has a history of supporting about 40 different terrorist organizations around the world finish their business. They might take quite some time, few years at least, but if you let them: then there will be - indeed - nobody left to protect.

[Dayuhan]

Next time I'm there and happen to run over any kind of US tourists (is unlikely to happen any time soon, of course, but you ought to be patient when things are about Syria), I'll ask them for their telephone numbers or e-mail addresses. Then I'll forward these to you so you can ask them - and hear with your own ears - what they've been told by their family, friends etc. when informing them they're about to do a trip to Syria.

So now you're jumping from "so we've been taught in the last 60 years" to a few comments heard by the miniscule handful of people that have contemplated traveling to Syria? People say all kinds of things about all kinds of places... I've heard people say the country I live in is full of crazy terrorists. That hardly equates to "so we've been taught in the last 60 years". Scuttlebutt from the ignorant doesn't constitute "teaching". Neither does random internet ranting from self-proclaimed authorities, something you might want to remember before embarking on lectures.

Tell me: Syria didn't become 'an irresistible and accessible magnet for crazy terrorists'?

Of course it has... but the terrorists that flock there are shooting at each other, not at us or our proxies. Because we don't have a proxy, we don't face that question of whether to abandon the proxy or provide direct support when our proxy predictably fails to accomplish what we hoped for. The assorted "crazy terrorists" don't have that "expel the infidel from the land of the faithful" mantra to fall back on, and they don't have a clear reason to urge attacks on the West... of course they'll still try, but we aren't handing them the narrative on a silver platter.

There's nothing that empowers the radical Islamic fringe quite so effectively as Western boots on the ground in Islamic countries, especially in countries in conflict. Western proxies aren't as good, but they'll do. Why supply your enemies with something they thrive on?

And this didn't happen precisely because of....what idiotic reason is now going to come to your mind...?

It happened because some of the Syrians tried to overthrow their dictator, the dictator declined to be overthrown, and a civil war ensued that emerged as a proxy showdown between Sunni and Shi'a. That showdown has drawn militants from both sides from around the region. I don't see any credible argument suggesting that the influx of militants would have been reduced by inserting Western intervention, directly or by proxy, into that picture.

Ah, you - the very person that is so much in love with complaining about anybody trying to 'guess the future' - is now predicting the future, and say 'it will'?

I was asked what I thought the impact of Western intervention on militant inflow would have been. I answered. That's an opinion, not a prediction. What do you think would have been the impact of Western intervention on militant inflow?

Oh, anybody trying to say 'this is what caused the war' is simply stupid. That's sure. But, sigh... well somebody like you, somebody who is trying to discuss the developments in Syria, and especially somebody doing that and being from the USA, sigh.... gosh, this is so boring to explain for XYth time, especially to people so insistent on proving completely unable to think and learn... might want to recall all the BS caused by Bush Sr.'s calls for Iraqis to raise against Saddam, back in March-April 1991, and then what has his failure to support the Iraqis that rose caused over the time.

Yes, that was dumb. Do you suggest that Bush Sr's irresponsible comments to Iraqis in 1991 are a reason for the US to intervene in Syria?

Ah, yes: there are no 'civilians' in Syria. 'Terrorists parking only' there...

When did the protection of Syrian civilians become an American responsibility?

[davidbfpo]

Slightly different viewpoint:

Edward Dark offers a perspective on the conflict — that of Syrian troops

Link:http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...ra-regime.html

[CrowBat]

...Neither does random internet ranting from self-proclaimed authorities, something you might want to remember before embarking on lectures.

Don't worry: I have realized already months ago there is no point in 'lecturing' you about anything at all. It's not only that you can't learn: you refuse learning even from your own mistakes - or mistakes of your own government, to be more precise - so what would be the point?

Of course it has... but the terrorists that flock there are shooting at each other, not at us or our proxies & other blahblah...

You see, this is a typical example of you working hard on finding excuse No. 745.396 for all the nonsense Washington is doing in Syria.

You're asking since when is the USA responsible for protection of civilians...

Whether this is the official US policy or whatever else, it doesn't matter: it's not me who is declaring the USA for 'craddle of democracy', 'supporting anybody struggling for freedom and democracy' and all other BS of that sort. That's simply the image emitted by the USA since decades. That image has created specific expectations from specific people outside the USA: you can now ignore this and explain it for irrelevant, and no part of your policy, and whatever other nonsense, but this is the soup the USA have created. Therefore, don't get surprised when there are plenty of people disapointed to realize the USA do not act that way in reality - and then turning against the USA as as result.

In 1989, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan which they have sysematically ruined in 10 years of war. They've left behind a week 'central' government, opposed by US/Saudi sponsored insurgency, run by Pakistan. Instead of doing something to rebuild the country, the USA have left Afghanistan at mercy of Pakistani (and other) Saudi-sponsored Islamists - with well known results. What a surprise then, that 20+ years later Afghanistan is still the same quagmire....

In 1991, the USA kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, and then called Iraqis to raise against Saddam. The Iraqis did so, but did not receive any kind of support: Saddam was left free to gas Shi'a in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north. When, 10 years later, the USA finally came to the idea to remove Saddam, Americans were ah so greatly surprised the Iraqis were not the least pleased about their late appearance....

The uprising in Libya received Western/NATO+friends support within 2 months of breaking out. It was over within 8 months, with dictatorship removed. Correspondingly, there was no time for Wahhabists (or similars) to gain a foothold, not to talk about 'taking over' the insurgency. Instead, Libya now has a pro-Western government. Surely, it's going to need another 10-15 years to get all of its troubles sorted out, but its biggest problem is out of the way.

The uprising in Syria is now more than 3 years old. It never received any kind of serious Western support (or if, then only in the last few weeks), with the result of the Wahhabists (and/or similars) being given all the time not only to gain a foothold, but indeed nearly collapse the insurgency 'from within'. Result: none of problems from 2011 has been removed, the country is in tatters for decades, unlikely to regain any semblance of sovereignity, full of extremists of all sorts, harbouring heavy IRGC-QF presence etc., and therefore likely to remain a main source of troubles for the time of our lifes.

I'm begging you, Dayuhan: PLEASE, do not 'learn' anything at all from all of these. Come back with your silly babbling about the lack of proxies in Syria, about the lack of cohesion within Syrian insurgency, and then go on listing the remaining 745.394 of your cheap excuses.

But, and whether you accept them or not, and no matter how much you refuse to accept them, these are bottom line facts. That's where the core of the issue - namely utter stupidity of decision-makers in Washington - lies; and that's all I have to say to you any more.

Feel free to come back with excuse 745.397 too, no problem: until you offer a sign of realization of what I'm telling you all the time, I'll just click on 'ignore'.

[JMA]

Don't worry: I have realized already months ago there is no point in 'lecturing' you about anything at all. It's not only that you can't learn: you refuse learning even from your own mistakes - or mistakes of your own government, to be more precise - so what would be the point?

Exactly, so don't feed the ....

[Fuchs]

In 1991, the USA kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, and then called Iraqis to raise against Saddam. The Iraqis did so, but did not receive any kind of support: Saddam was left free to gas Shi'a in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north.

Actually, the Halabja gas attack happened in 1988, years before the Kuwait thing. I'm not aware of any evidence about Hussein having used poison gas in 1991.

[davidbfpo]

Actually, the Halabja gas attack happened in 1988, years before the Kuwait thing. I'm not aware of any evidence about Hussein having used poison gas in 1991.

IIRC the 1991 use only recently became public information, I think a former USG official made the reference and it was reported by the US media, alas a Google search failed to find a source.

Earlier reports appear to have slipped out of sight. I have just found this:https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006...NFEB-IraqSarin

[JMA]

John McCain with Charlie Rose

At about 19:00 they move on to Syria.

[JMA]

Syrian rebels who received first U.S. missiles of war see shipment as ‘an important first step’

the arrival at the base last month of U.S.-made TOW antitank missiles, the first advanced American weaponry to be dispatched to Syria since the conflict began, has reignited long-abandoned hopes among the rebels that the Obama administration is preparing to soften its resistance to the provision of significant military aid and, perhaps, help move the battlefield equation back in their favor.

[AdamG]

Surely the US Administration will address this...



Al-Nusra uses chemical weapons against Syrian Army soldiers (SAA)

In this video, we see Al-Nusra rebels walking through a Syrian Army position. The dead Syrian soldiers do not appear to have been shot or blown up. There is no blood on any of the dead soldiers in the video. It looks as though their faces have been burned and some are holding gas masks in their hands.

This is proof the Al-Nusra has chemical weapons and most probably Sarin.

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=493_1...PsJVyS5wx07.99

If it was a gas attack, maybe the outpost was hit at night. Something about the bodies looks like they were half-dressed, particularly the cluster away from the farmhouse at the 8.00 or so mark. Survivors trying to regroup got a dose from the vapors?

Note that the SAA have been stripped of weapons and magazines.

Bodies have black burns on their faces - that's indicative of a Sarin gas attack, right?

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sarin/basics/facts.asp

[JMA]

Syria chemical weapons: the proof that Assad regime launching chlorine attacks on children

Lucky for Assad and any others there is no red-line on the use of chemicals.

then:

Syria Missed Another Chemical Weapons Deadline. Now What?

“I never have a reason to believe that Bashar al-Assad tells the truth about anything, but we are not in a position to give a judgment as to whether the declaration is complete or deliberately incomplete, or incomplete but not deliberately so. That’s a technical task,” the (administration) official said.

Yet they went ahead and signed a deal with Assad??????

... and the bodies pile up.


The last thing a 3-year-old Syrian said before he died: “I’m gonna tell God everything”

[davidbfpo]

A week ago a IISS Strategic Comment had the title 'Syria's war: Assad gains upper hand' and partly ended:

...While its survival is no longer in question in the medium term, its ability to rebuild the pretence of a state remains in doubt, given its limited resources, internal contradictions and the reality of soft partition. Syria is, in effect, transforming into small statelets, none of which is viable on its own.

Link to a very short free passage:http://www.iiss.org/en/publications/...pper-hand-6a54

[JMA]

No surprise: you only missed half the things that have happened in the Middle East since nearly 70 years...

Crowbat, I see you have met my 'friend' from the boonies.

Replies just encourage him.

[Dayuhan]

Replies just encourage him.

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

a massive human cost to the very people the US is supposed to be protecting.

...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]

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.