"In Syria The U.S. Is Not Sure On Who To Back And ..." Topic

…Who To Bomb.

"We're backing more than one side – even when we don't bomb the wrong one

Soon, soon, you will see a wondrous sight,' says the Isis anthem, ‘for your destruction, my sword has been sharpened. We march by night, to cut and behead… We make the streets run red with blood, from the stabbing of the bayonets, from the striking of the necks, on the assembly of the dogs.' The people of the Syrian town of Deir Ezzor were left in no doubt that they were the dogs in question. This nasheed — or chant — was posted on the internet, played over video from Syrian state TV of Deir Ezzor residents criticising the Isis siege. The message was clear.

That was at the beginning of this year, when fighters from Islamic State were closing on the city and seemed about to storm it. But Deir Ezzor held out: 100,000 people cut off and existing on the brink of starvation, sustained by airdrops from the regime, the Russians and the UN. Deir Ezzor survived for so long as the only government-held town in Syria's east because the regime sent its elite Republican Guard to defend it. The bloody stalemate went on until last weekend, when there was a development so unlikely that Isis might have considered it a miracle…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

The US will just supply weapons to the Gulf States and let them decide who to arm against Assad, no questions asked.

Wouldn't the most logical option in this scenario be to not involve oneself?

Just like in A'stan … there are few "good" options …

Well not quite 28mm Fanatik, Saudi (and I suppose Qatar) are still limited as to what they can supply to the Syrian rebels. Saudi would love to supply the rebels with SAMs but have been told not to.

But its still all to play for. When its clear that peace talks are not going to do it, the rules may change.

"Mr. President, I assure you, this is by far the best bad idea we've had in quite a while".

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

"In Syria The U.S. Is Not Sure On Who To Back And …"

That is because the US has an incoherent foreign policy coming from an incompetent administration.

Amen …

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

That is because the US has an incoherent foreign policy coming from an incompetent administration.

Well at least you can take comfort that the US is no longer blowing blood and treasure in huge amounts on foreign wars.

Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted.- Erwin Rommel

If the US is taking time to decide what to do, that is a good thing. Rather than leaping into the unknown.

Barack Obama's presidency is in its last days — would his successor do anything differently? Donald Trump began his campaign saying he had a ‘secret, foolproof' plan to beat Isis quickly, but later announced that he would give his generals 30 days to come up with a new plan. Hillary Clinton says she supports a no-fly zone and a safe area for civilians in northern Syria. But a safe area would shelter armed groups, too, some of which the US says are part of the global jihad.

Well at least you can take comfort that the US is no longer blowing blood and treasure in huge amounts on foreign wars.

I mention that often … TMP link

If the US is taking time to decide what to do, that is a good thing. Rather than leaping into the unknown.

In this situation, after years of war in the ME and A'stan. The US is far from that being the case.

A "Rommel" type would have been relieved or forced into early retirement, etc. Like the over 300 senior very capable military leaders have been in the past 7-8 years.

Syria is such a convoluted mess that no coherent or viable strategy is guaranteed to work:

link

Syria was ruled by the Assad family for decades without every being a threat to the United States. They even sent a token force in support of our coalition during the first Gulf War. Real trouble in Syria didn't start until the one two punch of our President saying Assad has to go and ISIS taking root. (ISIS would never have existed if the combination of Bush invading Iraq and the Obama withdrawing too soon.) Assad is a western educated doctor. As far as dictators go there are many worse than him and ISIS is certainly worse. Syria is not worth the life of one US soldier. President Obama should be writing Putin a thank you note for aiding in cleaning up the ISIS problem we helped to create. We need to stay out of that part of the world.

The Obama administration only pulled out of Iraq when they did due to the agreement made between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government due to the fact that the US will not subject it's service members to Iraqi laws and control, which is a good thing. ISIS did exist before GWII, but at the time it was merely a faction within Al Qaeda and it did not splinter until the Iraq war. It was a separate entity by the time Obama took office, so the argument that any actions taken by the Obama administration led to the creation of ISIS or the collapse of Iraq are simply wrong. ISIS existed before we left, but due to the fact that they were a minor group, they were not in the public eye. The simple fact that they were not believed to be a serious threat until they had swept aside Iraqi forces is proof of that. This is also more indicative of the terrible state of the Iraqi Army than it is of the power ISIS held at the time considering the numbers they had.

ISIS is only a serious threat to the region because it took advantage of weak, sectarian nations that were collapsing or on the verge of collapse.

As to who we should side with, I will not pretend to know enough to second guess the Pentagon and the Obama administration. In my slightly educated opinion, I feel that the Kurds are our only option, but then again not all of the Kurds are good guys either. I think that it was a mistake to get involved as much as we have with the Syrian rebels. Had we immediately gotten involved when it was a popular revolution, things may be different, but we waited too long and the extremists and ISIS gained the power with all of the secular fighters either being killed off or quitting once the war was turning south.

The whole situation is a mess and there will be no fixing it on our parts. We can't in good conscience change our support to Assad, who has become the stereotypical brutal dictator. We can't fully support the Kurds because Turkey and Iraq will stop cooperating. We can't fully support the rebels because they are fractured and inconsistently motivated. Our only options are to either stop completely and let the other players duke it out, allowing thousands more civilians to pay the price, or to keep doing what we are doing and providing lukewarm assistance to several groups, playing multiple sides and doing the most we can the end the war without committing to all out war, which we have learned is folly.

Good luck with that.

Have to agree with most of what you posted Gunnar. I have posted before and some are tired of hearing it.

The US made a number of errors in the past few decades. At least in 20/20 hindsight, IMO …

1)Supporting the Muj vs. the USSR. The CIA's initial plan to let both sides bleed themselves out seems like it would have been a better choice. And with any luck UBL and his crew would have died by USSR ordinance. That may have change some things ? We'll never know.

2) GWII in general
2a)Pulling out all troops too soon. But your point is well taken. Without a SoFA, we had no real choice. But I don't know if there was another way to keep US troops in country ? If we were more forceful in our attempts ? Etc., …
And I'm sure Iran had something to do with the decision the Iraqi Shia dominated government made. Iran wanted the US/West out of there. So they could manipulate the Shia majority in Iraq. To suit their narrative …

And I'll be making a prediction here … the Nuc deal with Iran and all that went along with it. Is going to come back sooner than later to bite us in the …

Also tonight's Lotto Number will be – 568 098 124 77 …

The whole situation is a mess and there will be no fixing it on our parts.

Yes, as I have said before … there is really nothing the US/West can do at this point. The underlining religious, tribal, ethnic, cleric, etc., differences have to be solved by the followers of islam, etc., in that region and some others locations as well. I don't have much hope for that to occur in my lifetime …

No one can do that for them … in the meantime it's moslem killing moslem in large numbers … And the odd islamic terrorist attacks killing non-islamic civilians in Europe and the US … That is the real threat I see to the West. Even if 97% of all islamist's attacks kill other moslems.

In all honesty, the attacks in the Western world do not worry me. I live in the DC area and work at a government building that is so lightly protected that it would be the perfect target for an attack. The intelligence community is probably the most capable part of our nation's government and the international community. The only kind of attacks that will likely work are the ones we have see lately. While tragic, you are more likely to be struck by lightning that killed in a terrorist attack in the western world. I refuse to surrender my humanity in order to maybe, MAYBE, prevent an attack. Our nation did that already to the Japanese and it is a source of shame that has been too easily forgotten due to the fact that we won World War Two. We did in the immediate aftermath of the start of the War on Terror and we have allowed ourselves to forget that as well. In a nation that speaks of how wonderful we are, we seem to gloss over the horrible things we did in the past rather than take responsibility for our actions. I'm not sure if it is a uniquely American mentality or not, but as a student of history I can not in good conscience forget our past and allow ourselves to repeat it.

If we want the be the beacon of light at the top of the hill, we better accept that it will attract both those seeking shelter and the predators.

All good points … and again … I agree with much of what you posted.

And it seems to me, many in "power" are not students of history, and on occasion it is demonstrated.

The bottom line is that Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria are all worse off under the Obama administration.

…are all worse off under the Obama administration.

To be fair, it isn't all the POTUS's fault. Iraq is a mess created by his predecessor and the early withdrawal of troops from Iraq was necessary due to the fact that Iraq would not exempt US forces from her laws and courts when the Status of Forces Agreement was up for renewal. The same is true for Afghanistan, which has never been tamed in her long and tortured history and the American people wanted to bring our troops home after more than a decade of occupation.

I do blame him for Libya, though IIRC he was reluctant to impose a no-fly zone to seal Gaddafi's fate but was pressured to do so by certain elements in the American government as well as key European allies such as France and Britain.

As for Syria, well, I would prefer that we do nothing but I think he should at least be given credit for doing the bare minimum required to maintain the illusion that the country can still be salvaged.

As any unfinished military occupation that ends within the same generation would be in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq. Libya is worse, yes and it was due to NATO. Syria is a mess. Does that mean that the Obama administration actually made Syria worse or was it just that Obama just happened to be president at the time when the country went to hell? You could say the same things about Iraq and Afghanistan for the Bush administration. What about Iran and Iraq after Reagan played both sides in their war? What about Johnson and Vietnam? What about much of South America during the Reagan administration? His reckless pursuit of communism and any sort of popular government directly led to half of Central and South America being overrun by the Narcos. What about Afghanistan during Reagan?

When you create power vacuums by tearing down governments without a real plan to rebuild them, things get worse. On the other hand, some people in Iraq and Afghanistan are happier now than they've been in decades. Women in Afghanistan are starting to regain the freedoms they had before Reagan helped to overthrow their government by supplying the very organizations that we are fighting today. In Iraq, Shi'ites are very happy with their situation. Now, I do not equate these two things from a moral point of view, one is objectively good and the other is just a shift in power, but both groups are significantly happier with the changes made.

Make no mistake, the Obama administration has made some mistakes, but they pale in comparison to the mistakes of most of the administrations in recent history.

Libya is worse, yes and it was due to NATO

Libya didn't attack any NATO countries. The US participated in the operation; and we shouldn't have. We are the biggest partner in NATO and could have dissuaded the other members.

Does that mean that the Obama administration actually made Syria worse or was it just that Obama just happened to be president at the time when the country went to hell?

Obama interjected himself in Syria with his calling for regime change and his "red line" rhetoric, which aggravated the situation in Syria. So, yes, Obama made it worse.

You could say the same things about Iraq and Afghanistan for the Bush administration

Bush didn't inherit an Iraq in chaos; he caused it. Saddam was contained. Afghanistan on the other had was chaos and now has some normal government at least in the urban areas (for now).

So yes, I do blame our leaders. Johnson/McNamara mishandled Vietnam. And Reagan could have given every Contra rebel hiding the jungle a million dollars to resettle in the US and saved money with what he spent fighting the Sandinistas.