Quote Originally Posted by Azor View Post
We both know that the MSM rarely gets war and international politics right, if ever.

By Lister on the Kurdish Question in Syria:



Yet in his recommendations, Lister calls for:



Well, which is it?

Should the U.S. resolve the Turkish-Kurdish conflict first before advancing on Raqqa?

If FSA units are to be included in the SDF to dilute the YPG's influence, then should the U.S. resolve the FSA-Assad conflict first? Or after the Turkish-Kurdish one?

Lister has a very good grasp of the situation, but he is unable to proffer good recommendations because there are too many moving parts.

He makes the mistake of suggesting a level of U.S. involvement "that sits in-between" regime change and the status quo. As you may have noticed in South Vietnam, and which younger Americans have noticed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, there is no "in-between".

The U.S. had the ability to effectively deny all of these countries to their adversaries with little effort, but it could not establish strong and friendly states without making a total commitment. Note that the Marshall Plan was less expensive than the development costs for Afghanistan, adjusted for inflation.

Moreover, the "zones of calm" that Lister calls for, backed ostensibly by U.S. airpower, are unprecedented in that such a dynamic with internal and external warring parties has never occurred before:

  • In Iraq, Iraqi forces had already been decimated by the war with Iran (financially) and then the Gulf War, both of which involved major ground combat
  • In Bosnia, the Bosnian Serbs were already under pressure to negotiate, including by Yugoslavia
  • In Kosovo, the Serbs believed that a land invasion was imminent and were under pressure from Russia


What is wrong with the status quo, if supplies to the vetted FSA units are increased and efforts are made to reorganize the SDF to include more non-Kurds?

From a public relations perspective, Daesh will probably need to be defeated on the battlefield first before the U.S. can quietly restructure the situation. If Daesh is not a priority, there will be domestic confusion and anger.
And again here is what you simply are not getting...you can "defeat" IS on the ground...BUT again in Iraq I watched the US military claim they "defeated" AQI by 2008/2009...only to have them disperse and go into a very good form of guerrilla warfare working together with the other Sunni insurgent groups....and actually began beating up on Army units in well
carried out swarm attacks....

Which is what both Lister and Orton are pointing towards again happening in both Iraq right now and is coming in Syria...