@wolfgang59 said(1) Can staying in Syria be in US interests? Moreover, can it actually be in Syrian interests?
1. Can withdrawing from Syria be in the US interest?
2. Is Putin rubbing his hands with glee?
3. How confused are Israel?
and finally
Can POTUS unilaterally recall troops?
(2) To some degree, sure. He is willing to trade and work deals with Assad, and the Russians and Iranians are willing to work with that.
Since Assad means stability for his nation and his people, why not? What's so bad?
After what happened in Iraq, do we really have to entertain the idea that the only acceptable result is a democracy in Syria, and everything else is a failure... so we have to maintain it as a destabilized war zone until we can fill the vacuum with a democracy -- a democracy that will likely immediately collapse..?
What's your stance on Iraq, Woflgang? I am curious what lessons you would take from that and apply to this.
(3) My guess is that Israel is fine with it continuing in a state of indefinite warfare and would only really want peace if the new regime was guaranteed to be utterly ineffective and thus not that different from the current status or if there was some totally malleable pomp put in power.
20 Dec 18
@wolfgang59 said1. Yes.
1. Can withdrawing from Syria be in the US interest?
2. Is Putin rubbing his hands with glee?
3. How confused are Israel?
and finally
Can POTUS unilaterally recall troops?
2. Who knows?
3. Who cares?
Yes, the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
If Trump actually goes through with this, I'll give him a kudo. I suspect he'll get talked out of it, however. Contrary to his campaign promises, he has expanded US military operations and drone strikes throughout the Middle East and elsewhere sharply increasing civilian deaths for little purpose.
@philokalia saidAssad hardly means stability; the Syrian People rose up in a civil war against him that continues.
(1) Can staying in Syria be in US interests? Moreover, can it actually be in Syrian interests?
(2) To some degree, sure. He is willing to trade and work deals with Assad, and the Russians and Iranians are willing to work with that.
Since Assad means stability for his nation and his people, why not? What's so bad?
After what happened in Iraq, do we really ...[text shortened]... not that different from the current status or if there was some totally malleable pomp put in power.
Nonetheless, it's really none of the US' affair. Hawks like Bolton in the Trump administration want troops to remain in Syria to threaten Iran, but that creates a dangerous tripwire for no good reason. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-largely-unrecognized-us-occupation-of-syria-nearly-one-third-of-its-territory/5631775
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/09/25/the-white-house-just-revealed-massive-mission-creep-in-syria-heres-why/
@no1marauder saidSyrian uprising. BS. I smell the CIA. It all started over a pipepline thru Syria to which Assad said NO. Same as Afganistan. A pipline. And let's not forget the CIAs slush fund, the poppy fields. Same as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia. Some thing never change.
Assad hardly means stability; the Syrian People rose up in a civil war against him that continues.
Nonetheless, it's really none of the US' affair. Hawks like Bolton in the Trump administration want troops to remain in Syria to threaten Iran, but that creates a dangerous tripwire for no good reason. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-largely-unrecognized-us-occupation-of-syria-nearly-one-third-of-its-territory/5631775
@no1marauder saidThe Assyrian people eventually did rise up to some degree, sure, but what is ISIS primarily composed of..? Foreign fighters.
Assad hardly means stability; the Syrian People rose up in a civil war against him that continues.
Nonetheless, it's really none of the US' affair. Hawks like Bolton in the Trump administration want troops to remain in Syria to threaten Iran, but that creates a dangerous tripwire for no good reason. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-largely-unrecognized-us-occupation-o ...[text shortened]... ws/your-air-force/2018/09/25/the-white-house-just-revealed-massive-mission-creep-in-syria-heres-why/
The destabilization of Iraq contributed greatly to this.
We also know what ME democracies tend to devolve into pretty quickly.
... You know, Hussein's people also revolted against him. Were you a big supporter of the Iraq war, Marauder?
20 Dec 18
@philokalia said1. Original thinking was it is better to fight ISIS in Syria rather than in USA.
(1) Can staying in Syria be in US interests? Moreover, can it actually be in Syrian interests?
(2) To some degree, sure. He is willing to trade and work deals with Assad, and the Russians and Iranians are willing to work with that.
Since Assad means stability for his nation and his people, why not? What's so bad?
After what happened in Iraq, do we really ...[text shortened]... not that different from the current status or if there was some totally malleable pomp put in power.
On top of that US does not want Iranian influence spreading.
2. Russia getting more influence in Middle East - of course Putin is happy.
3. Israel will be pissed.
Of course the other losers will be the Kurds who have been
fighting the war for US. Turkey will give them a rough time.
20 Dec 18
@philokalia saidISIS was not part of the initial uprising against Assad. That civil war continues even though ISIS is essentially moribund.
The Assyrian people eventually did rise up to some degree, sure, but what is ISIS primarily composed of..? Foreign fighters.
The destabilization of Iraq contributed greatly to this.
We also know what ME democracies tend to devolve into pretty quickly.
... You know, Hussein's people also revolted against him. Were you a big supporter of the Iraq war, Marauder?
The Iraq War had nothing to do with any internal uprising against Saddam. In any event, I do not support military intervention in other countries' civil wars.
@no1marauder saidYet, ISIS ended up occupying a very significant chunk of Syria (and Iraq), carving out what amounted to a literal state, often times with its capital in the Syrian city of Raqa.
ISIS was not part of the initial uprising against Assad. That civil war continues even though ISIS is essentially moribund.
The Iraq War had nothing to do with any internal uprising against Saddam. In any event, I do not support military intervention in other countries' civil wars.
Without ISIS there, Assad could have handled the rebellion much more easily.
Let's also remember that one of the flashpoints for the rebellion was that videos were released of Assad's men torturing Islamists (not freedom fighters).
---
So you do not support military intervention in other countries' civil wars... What's your point, then?
Where's your clash with me?
Or are you just tryign to set the record straight or whatever?
20 Dec 18
@wolfgang59 saidHow is how Turkey treats rebellious Kurds any affair of the US or any foreign government? What business of ours if Iran's "influence spreads" in some vague manner? How many people is it worth killing or being killed to prevent such a thing?
1. Original thinking was it is better to fight ISIS in Syria rather than in USA.
On top of that US does not want Iranian influence spreading.
2. Russia getting more influence in Middle East - of course Putin is happy.
3. Israel will be pissed.
Of course the other losers will be the Kurds who have been
fighting the war for US. Turkey will give them a rough time.
The domino theory is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 1960s. It's far more likely that US intervention against ISIS caused a wave of attacks in the US than that it prevented any.
Screw Putin.
Screw Israel.
20 Dec 18
@no1marauder saidThe domino theory was largely true.
How is how Turkey treats rebellious Kurds any affair of the US or any foreign government? What business of ours if Iran's "influence spreads" in some vague manner? How many people is it worth killing or being killed to prevent such a thing?
The domino theory is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 1960s. It's far more likely that US intervention against ISIS caused a wave of attacks in the US than that it prevented any.
Screw Putin.
Screw Israel.
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam all fell to Communism, and Thailand fought a long war to keep it out of there.
It wasn't a radical idea.
20 Dec 18
@philokalia saidIt's rather hard to say. While ISIS in Iraq (where it was much more dangerous) fought almost exclusively against the Iraqi government and related forces, ISIS in Syria was mostly at war with other anti-government forces. ISIS has been heading for its inevitable defeat for a long time; it reached the apex of it territorial gains in mid-2014 and has been rolled back ever since. You can't literally make enemies of virtually everybody in the world and maintain a State. https://www.jpost.com/Jerusalem-Report/Eclipse-of-the-caliphate-442272
Yet, ISIS ended up occupying a very significant chunk of Syria (and Iraq), carving out what amounted to a literal state, often times with its capital in the Syrian city of Raqa.
Without ISIS there, Assad could have handled the rebellion much more easily.
Let's also remember that one of the flashpoints for the rebellion was that videos were released of Assad's men t ...[text shortened]... ?
Where's your clash with me?
Or are you just tryign to set the record straight or whatever?
I'm correcting some of your wrong information, not disagreeing with the ultimate conclusion (if that is what you are saying) that the US should get out of Syria (I never thought they should have got in BTW).
20 Dec 18
@philokalia saidNo, it wasn't.:
The domino theory was largely true.
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam all fell to Communism, and Thailand fought a long war to keep it out of there.
It wasn't a radical idea.
Eisenhower expanded on this thought, explaining, “You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly.” This would lead to disintegration in Southeast Asia, with the “loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following.” Eisenhower suggested that even Japan, which needed Southeast Asia for trade, would be in danger.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-gives-famous-domino-theory-speech
It was a dumb idea which got probably millions of people killed.
20 Dec 18
@kquinn909 saidI'll leave the Deep State, evidence-free musings to others. We actually know the specific events which signalled the uprising, though the specific causes are more complex:
Syrian uprising. BS. I smell the CIA. It all started over a pipepline thru Syria to which Assad said NO. Same as Afganistan. A pipline. And let's not forget the CIAs slush fund, the poppy fields. Same as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia. Some thing never change.
nspired by the so-called Arab Spring uprisings in neighbouring countries, thousands of Syrians took to the streets in March 2011 for protests, demanding democratic reform and the release of political prisoners. Demonstrations in Damascus, Aleppo and Daraa were met with deadly force by the authorities. The unrest spread, with police and security forces using physical force, tear gas, water cannon and live rounds against protesters in a bid to crush the dissent. Tens of thousands were arrested. Amid growing calls for the resignation of Assad, whose family has ruled Syria since 1971, the violence continued to escalate and protesters began taking up arms.
Opposition rises
During the summer of 2011, the opposition became better equipped. The “first significant armed resistance” of the crisis came in June, when a local insurrection was mounted near the border with Turkey, according to the Institute for the Study of War: angry protesters set fire to a building in the city of Jisr al-Shughour, killing eight security officers, and took control of a police station. The Assad regime pushed the opposition out of the region, using tanks and artillery, but armed resistance continued. Defecting Syrian army officers formed the Free Syrian Army (FSA), with the goal of bringing down the government.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/syrian-civil-war/92938/how-did-the-syrian-civil-war-begin
@no1marauder saidI do not think that anything that I have said is erroneous. I did omit the "fact" (or whatever) that the Syrians rebelled against Assad, sure, but that's OK. I do not have such a burden.
It's rather hard to say. While ISIS in Iraq (where it was much more dangerous) fought almost exclusively against the Iraqi government and related forces, ISIS in Syria was mostly at war with other anti-government forces. ISIS has been heading for its inevitable defeat for a long time; it reached the apex of it territorial gains in mid-2014 and has been rolled back ever si ...[text shortened]... t you are saying) that the US should get out of Syria (I never thought they should have got in BTW).
It's in your nature, though, to always try to be the smartest guy in the room, so you felt the need to add to what I said and put it in a way that was hostile and antagonistic. That is fine, though: that's the sort of drive that people need to find meaning in life.
Without that drive, where would the Debates Forum be today?
... And y es, of course, ISIS is heading towards is conclusion and has been being slowly defeated for a very long time.