The war on ISIS.

[Dotini]

Good news (Thank you, Mr Trump):

https://www.yahoo.com/news/war-syria-u-no-longer-203040520.html
World
War in Syria: U.S. Will No Longer Target Assad

Tom O’Connor,Newsweek Thu, Mar 30 1:30 PM PDT

The U.S. government has shifted its position in the war in Syria and would no longer push for the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Both U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made comments Thursday suggesting that Washington had softened its stance on Assad, who has faced a six-year uprising by various insurgent groups formerly supported by the West. Before and after taking office, President Donald Trump had suggested that Assad, whom the previous administration had accused of war crimes, was a better alternative to opposition groups, many of which harbored ties to jihadist organizations such as the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS, and al-Qaeda. Speaking to a small group of reporters, Haley revealed how far Washington had come from the "Assad must go" policy pursued by former President Barack Obama.

"Our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out," Haley told a small group of reporters, according to Reuters. "Our priority is to really look at how do we get things done, who do we need to work with to really make a difference for the people in Syria."

 

[prisonermonkeys]

"Our priority is to really look at how do we get things done, who do we need to work with to really make a difference for the people in Syria."

So, let me get this straight: getting rid of a despot who has waged a brutal war against his own people with little to no regard for civilian casualties won't make a difference for the people of Syria?

 

[ExigeEvan]

So, let me get this straight: getting rid of a despot who has waged a brutal war against his own people with little to no regard for civilian casualties won't make a difference for the people of Syria?

It's a fair point but it what we've learned from Iraq and Libya is that setting up a new government is incredibly difficult and does nothing to reduce the in-fighting within the country. Which is something we kind of knew before, as we (the west) provided support to many if these dictatorships because they brought stability to the country at the cost of human rights violations.

It's quite realistic to accept that you don't have a government solution to fill the void, but it's probably better to realise that before you've created the void.

At best, Assad will remain in power of a government that is very closely scrutinized by the west, potentially with local nations providing a security solution that limits his ability to harm civilians.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

At best, Assad will remain in power of a government that is very closely scrutinized by the west, potentially with local nations providing a security solution that limits his ability to harm civilians.

And based on everything that he has done so far, he is likely to ignore all of that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Didn't El Presidente say he had a plan to eliminate ISIS within 30 days?

Use of the controversial covert op Mole People, gee what a brute

 

[ExigeEvan]

And based on everything that he has done so far, he is likely to ignore all of that.

Probably. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. But finding some way to stop further civilian loss of life and prevent the growth of Daesh has to be the priority over political ideals.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

finding some way to stop further civilian loss of life

By backing out completely and letting Assad do as he pleases?

prevent the growth of Daesh

They're on the ropes in Iraq. Losing Mosul will drive them out almost completely. And they're so busy fighting everyone in Syria that they can't get a foothold. Don't let maps showing the lands they control confuse you - they hold vast swathes of emptiness by virtue of controlling a few key towns.

 

[ExigeEvan]

By backing out completely and letting Assad do as he pleases?

I haven't suggested that, at all.

At best, Assad will remain in power of a government that is very closely scrutinized by the west, potentially with local nations providing a security solution that limits his ability to harm civilians.

They're on the ropes in Iraq. Losing Mosul will drive them out almost completely. And they're so busy fighting everyone in Syria that they can't get a foothold. Don't let maps showing the lands they control confuse you - they hold vast swathes of emptiness by virtue of controlling a few key towns.

I think that's incredibly naive. Look at the Taliban's continued efforts in Afghanistan. We've just lost Sangin, again. We lost loads of British blood and lives over that region, and now several years after we will see many more lives lost trying to recapture it.

The current success is only because of the continued Western air support, materials and training. Without all of that, Daesh will grow again in those areas of "emptiness" and overthrow local forces.

It's no different to the time we believed the forces in Afghanistan were beat, diverted our attention to Iraq and then found ourselves fighting for lost land in Afghanistan again.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Look at the Taliban's continued efforts in Afghanistan.

There are genuine concerns that ISIS will take hold in Afghanistan. And if they do, they'll have a natural ally in the Taliban. If their influence extends to Afghanistan, it could take decades to dig them out. Which is why it's better to beat them in Syria. Right now, Assad is mostly interested in killing anyone who opposes him. He hasn't done much about dispelling ISIS because it would take a lot of resources to recapture and hold towns of little strategic importance to his objective. Disengaging from the campaign against Assad would be a bad move because the various rebel groups would stop fighting against ISIS and instead try and survive. That would give ISIS time to regroup and rebuild their forces and export their ideology.

It's also important to beat ISIS in Syria because Syria has ideological importance to them. ISIS believes that the fight in Syria is (at least in part) Armageddon - the final confrontation between good and evil (with them being "good"). Beating them in Syria could potentially break them for good because they will have lost the apocalyptic battle. But if they take hold in Afghanistan, they could continue to support a war in Syria for years to come.

 

[Scaff]

There are genuine concerns that ISIS will take hold in Afghanistan. And if they do, they'll have a natural ally in the Taliban. If their influence extends to Afghanistan, it could take decades to dig them out. Which is why it's better to beat them in Syria. Right now, Assad is mostly interested in killing anyone who opposes him. He hasn't done much about dispelling ISIS because it would take a lot of resources to recapture and hold towns of little strategic importance to his objective. Disengaging from the campaign against Assad would be a bad move because the various rebel groups would stop fighting against ISIS and instead try and survive. That would give ISIS time to regroup and rebuild their forces and export their ideology.

It's also important to beat ISIS in Syria because Syria has ideological importance to them. ISIS believes that the fight in Syria is (at least in part) Armageddon - the final confrontation between good and evil (with them being "good"). Beating them in Syria could potentially break them for good because they will have lost the apocalyptic battle. But if they take hold in Afghanistan, they could continue to support a war in Syria for years to come.

Technically both Iraq and Syria are as symbolicly important to IS as each other. The Levant (as in ISIL the title they prefer) consisted of land that is in both countries (and historicaly also the Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and bits of a few others).

 

[ExigeEvan]

There are genuine concerns that ISIS will take hold in Afghanistan. And if they do, they'll have a natural ally in the Taliban. If their influence extends to Afghanistan, it could take decades to dig them out. Which is why it's better to beat them in Syria.

I'm not quite sure if i agree with the idea that defeating Daesh in Syria will make Afghanistan safer. Both territories have to be secured simultaneously as Daesh are without true bases or supply chains, they're practically a nomadic army that will find resources (including weapons) wherever they go and it's proven impossible to corner them. The best we've managed so far is to reduce their fighting ability.

Disengaging from the campaign against Assad would be a bad move because the various rebel groups would stop fighting against ISIS and instead try and survive. That would give ISIS time to regroup and rebuild their forces and export their ideology.

Who's currently fighting Assad? The west certainly aren't because he's protected by Russia.

It's also important to beat ISIS in Syria because Syria has ideological importance to them. ISIS believes that the fight in Syria is (at least in part) Armageddon - the final confrontation between good and evil (with them being "good"). Beating them in Syria could potentially break them for good because they will have lost the apocalyptic battle. But if they take hold in Afghanistan, they could continue to support a war in Syria for years to come.

I'm not sure removing Daesh from Syria would do anything except provide further motivation. Reclaiming territory doesn't weaken Daesh, it simply liberates civilians. Daesh will only be beaten if their funding and recruitment are stifled.

 

[Liquid]

The awkward moment when you agree with Daesh.

 

[Dennisch]

He'll make it a personal endeavour now.

 

[Liquid]

He'll make it a personal endeavour now.

His plan to destroy them is 40 days overdue anyway.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He'll make it a personal endeavour now.

You mean sue them for defamation?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You mean sue them for defamation?

It's fair enough. They've started operating pretty-much in secret, the locations of their hidden command centres or planned attacks are unknown and they consistently refuse to have a proper Twitter account or to take out ads on Fox. How the hell is a President supposed to get information against those kinds of odds?

 

[Jawehawk]

So, let me get this straight: getting rid of a despot who has waged a brutal war against his own people with little to no regard for civilian casualties won't make a difference for the people of Syria?

Putting any of the many rebel groups, who have also waged a war with little regard for civilians, in power, hardly seems like a good idea.

It's a loss/loss situation, but Assad and his regime would likely maintain more stability.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's a loss/loss situation, but Assad and his regime would likely maintain more stability

By dropping chemical weapons on civilians?

 

[Jawehawk]

By dropping chemical weapons on civilians?

By killing a large amount of civilians. How they do it, is mostly irrelevant. The point is that they're no better than Assad, and it's entirely likely that they themselves would use chemical weapons if they had access to them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

By killing a large amount of civilians. How they do it, is mostly irrelevant. The point is that they're no better than Assad, and it's entirely likely that they themselves would use chemical weapons if they had access to them.

So you think they're the only alternative to Assad?

 

[Jawehawk]

So you think they're the only alternative to Assad?

What other alternatives are there? The UN? Forming entirely new parties that are then democratically elected?

Who's to say that the various rebel groups would even allow new parties to take control?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Forming entirely new parties that are then democratically elected?

Not a bad idea.

Who's to say that the various rebel groups would even allow new parties to take control?

The terms of the new government - remember that some of the "rebels" actually represent self-identified states that wish to be autonomous and which don't necessarily want autonomy over the whole of Syria rather their homelands.

 

[Dennisch]

Isn't it great how the world is appalled about the gas attack? Again. And that they're asking the UN safety council to condemn the attack?

****ers. Words won't help here.

This should be the umpteenth time for the UN to flex its muscles, put Russia on the block and just start an all out war against Assad.

 

[Touring Mars]

Isn't it great how the world is appalled about the gas attack? Again. And that they're asking the UN safety council to condemn the attack?

****ers. Words won't help here.

This should be the umpteenth time for the UN to flex its muscles, put Russia on the block and just start an all out war against Assad.

Sadly it is by no means as simple as that - I think we all wish it was, but it isn't.

All out war against Assad means going to war with Vladimir Putin - the chance to support non-Islamist anti-Assad forces slipped by years ago, but not without a great deal of careful consideration.

However awful these atrocities are - and they don't come much more disgusting than this - it is just as important to ensure that the cure is not worse than the cause, especially given that driving Assad out would play into the hands of ISIS, who just days ago were filmed using toddlers as human shields.

The war in Syria is a horrible example of what happens when both sides in a conflict are utterly indefensible.

 

[Dotini]

What other alternatives are there? The UN? Forming entirely new parties that are then democratically elected?

Who's to say that the various rebel groups would even allow new parties to take control?

The middle east was for generations ruthlessly but fairly peacefully controlled by cruel and bloody secular dictators - our cruel and bloody client secular dictators, who catered to us and received our money, weapons and support. Nothing happened that we didn't approve of. Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, all of them, were all broken to our yoke. Then we got it into our high and mighty minds that we needed to get rid of these secular dictators and install democracies based on sectarian majorities, democracies which turned around and ruled tyrannically based on 1000 year old religious feuds. Result, anarchy, madness, horrific war crimes, destruction of nations, millions dead and millions more migrating to Europe. Whoops, do-over! All we need now to fix this is a time machine and the ability to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

 

[Dennisch]

The war in Syria is a horrible example of what happens when both sides in a conflict are utterly indefensible.

It also shows that having the UN around is basically a waste of money. In situations like this all they do is talk. And if there is a vote for something (groundbreaking) to happen, there's always a dillhole in the way throwing his Veto into the fight.

 

[Dotini]

It also shows that having the UN around is basically a waste of money. In situations like this all they do is talk. And if there is a vote for something (groundbreaking) to happen, there's always a dillhole in the way throwing his Veto into the fight.

For long time, there has been an effort to create a New World Order. In essence, this would replace the nation states - all sovereign and wayward like a pack of stray cats - with supranational rule, wise, benevolent and just with human rights for all. But a new order requires the breakdown, destruction, dismemberment and death of the old order first. So don't worry, we are up to the job and well on our way.

 

[Obelisk]

For long time, there has been an effort to create a New World Order. In essence, this would replace the nation states - all sovereign and wayward like a pack of stray cats - with supranational rule, wise, benevolent and just with human rights for all. But a new order requires the breakdown, destruction, dismemberment and death of the old order first.

Wait, what?

 

[TenEightyOne]

For long time, there has been an effort to create a New World Order.

Oh for goodness' sake, @Dotini!

 

[Dotini]

Wait, what?

Waiting is done, gone and out of the question. There is no waiting - history plunges ahead relentlessly.

As to what we are in for and where we are headed, we must rely on our great strategists and architects of war, peace and revolution. You know some them - Henry Kissinger for instance.

The League of Nations, The United Nations, The European Union, NATO, these are all baby steps to the new world order.