Religious Extremism in Syria:A New Launching Pad for Global Terrorism
This is a conference @ Vienna 2nd May 2014, rather late to get a place I guess, but advertised today by the e-journal 'Perspectives on Terrorism', so there must be places.
Added here as the agenda may identify new sources for those who watch Syria:http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/...yria_2_May.pdf
davidbfpo
David, this can't be true.
Years ago then the Syria 'problem' first started we were assured by a bunch of smart guys here at SWC that Syria was merely a sideshow with no potential for regional or global 'overspill'.
Were they wrong? Are they prepared to admit it?
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
Quite possibly an Indiana Jones sequel in here somewhere...
#
Tomb of Doom: how a tiny enclave could draw turkey into Syria's war
by#FRANK JACOBS
Who said that, and where? Feel free to cite specific posts.
I re-read much of the old Syria thread the other day. It's at times entertaining and at times excruciating, but I didn't see anybody saying anything even remotely resembling a claim that it was "merely a sideshow with no potential for regional or global 'overspill". A number of people pointed out that US intervention was unlikely to prevent "overspill" and could very easily provoke or accelerate it, but that's a quite different thing.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Oh, I don't expect any admission from those who continue to get it so badly wrong (on Syria and just about everywhere).
The US cultural diesease of refusing to take responsibility for one actions is clearly alive and well and has sadly spread and infected the Brits in a big way (see their shrill denials over their abysmal Iraq and Afghanistan performance).
You can sleep well with the comfort that nobody could consistently get it wrong as the US WH over the recent past. You are in 'good' company.
If I were you I would switch to decaff ... or camomile tea.
Another response after a nerve touched?
I dont suppose youve ever heard of Victor Meldrue have you?
Accusing anyone of "getting it wrong" doesn't hold much water unless you can say what you think "getting it right" would have been.
The US has, like most nations, never been overly fond of taking responsibility for its actions, but I can't see how one could reasonably argue that the Syrian Civil War is a consequence of US or British action.
I have my share of criticism of the US approach to Syria, most notably involving the excruciating "red line" comments, but at least they have gotten one thing right: US involvement remains peripheral and limited. There is no faction that could realistically be described as a US proxy, and US forces are not engaged. That at least is something: it was always going to be a mess, but at least we haven't made it a worse mess, or made it our mess.
What do you think should have been done, and what do you think the outcome of that action would have been?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Well Said!
Am I to understand it was self combustion?
Yes, I can say what is 'getting it right'.
Let nations be as they are and what they think is right and not impost on them as to what you think is right.
Understand the social and religious compulsions of the Islamic nations.
Let them stew in their own juice and not tell them to have the American apple pie!
No Islamic nation has been a problem until they were told 'what is right'!
What is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander.
Last edited by Ray; 06-12-2014 at 12:32 PM.
Largely, yes, just as Egypt, Tunisia, and Bahrain were. Dictators eventually generate rebellions, there's no need for an outside agitator, though dictators (and their supporters) generally assume one. Certainly the other Arab Spring revolts had something to do with setting off the Syrian situation, but I see no reason to assume that the US was involved.
I agree. Of course just because the US stays out doesn't mean everybody else will, and there's a whole lot of external intervention in Syria that has nothing to do with the US.
Letting nations "be as they are and what they think" will not of course produce peace and order, because many nations contain multiple conflicting ideas about what they are and what they think, and those will occasionally erupt into violence, as they have in Syria. I think we often forget that civil war in Iraq was going to be a very likely feature in any post-Saddam scenario. Nations sometimes need to sort out their own internal conflicts, and it's generally not a very pretty process.
Again, agreed... but I don't think anyone in Syria is pushing American apple pie.
Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal was largely ignored, and turned into a bit of a problem.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
I wonder how many 'rebellions' are indigenous.
There is indeed major issues that simmers, but then when it come to 'shove', a little help from friends make good sense.
We have recently seen a quasi revolution in India itself that raised hopes only to deceive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aam_Aadmi_Party
It has been now revealed that they were foreign funded. Obviously, they deny such charges.
If the Arab Spring encouraged 'popular' revolutions in the Arab world, how is it that Saudi Arabia, the most repressive of dictatorship, has not been affected?
Read 'West' for 'US'. Even so, to feel that the US is not involved and its is the West alone which is involved, would be an understatement. If the US sneeze, the West earthquakes!I agree. Of course just because the US stays out doesn't mean everybody else will, and there's a whole lot of external intervention in Syria that has nothing to do with the US.
Letting nations "be as they are and what they think" will not of course produce peace and order, because many nations contain multiple conflicting ideas about what they are and what they think, and those will occasionally erupt into violence, as they have in Syria. I think we often forget that civil war in Iraq was going to be a very likely feature in any post-Saddam scenario. Nations sometimes need to sort out their own internal conflicts, and it's generally not a very pretty process.
Letting nations "be as they are and what they think" may not be the panacea for peace and tranquillity, but then let them stew in their own juice. What give the right for any nation or group of nations to intervene to spread 'peace and tranquillity' on their terms, which actually end up in a chaotic state of affairs as we are observing in Iraq? The situation in Iraq will pressure oil supply and will cause inflation in countries dependent on oil, and in turn will create unstable conditions in those countries (as in Asia and Africa) and in the bargain make them international trouble spots. And so in actuality bringing more confusion world wide.
If one knew that post Saddam would invite a civil war, then it is daft to have intervened to create that chaos.
If that was not so, then what is being pushed? Freedom and Democracy? Whose Freedom and whose Democracy?Again, agreed... but I don't think anyone in Syria is pushing American apple pie.
That is rich!Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal was largely ignored, and turned into a bit of a problem.
Create the problem and then act cute!
That apart, just watch how the Middle East is burning because of the chaos created in Iraq (US) and now Syria (heaven knows who spurred the chaos in Syria) and its fallout the ISIS.
Last edited by Ray; 06-17-2014 at 08:56 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks