Syria

Assad and his regime are a special kind of wicked. The Russians are willing to overlook it for personal gain which is about what you would expect from them. Anyone willing to review Assad and his regime's past without bias would never allow him back in power.

 

If you desire stability you leave him in power. Removing him leaves a vacuum that the likes of ISIS rises up in. Stability or freedom, we can't have both.

 

I'm not of the opinion that leaving him in power equates to stability given his track record and who he has ties with. I see it as a lose-lose situation right now.

 

Agreed. It might even be a lose-lose-lose situation, what with the refugee crisis.

 

Unless it directly tied to our national security, we shouldn't be over there messing around.

There's a lot of wicked going on in South America, Africa and all over the world. That's not out place to sort that out.

 

I don't mean to attack you personally here, but for what middle eastern government have we warred with or backed their opposition has this not been trotted out? Trying to determine the winners in this region has and will continue to make us losers.

 

This

 

Minus a foreign standing army, who could possibly fill the void in his place? The whole reason ISIS got a foothold to begin with was because they took advantage of Assad spending all his strength fighting the US backed rebels. There currently isn't any stability because we're forcing the strongest ME group to fight a 2 front war. If we want stability we should help Assad and quickly finish this. The US can't really point to Assad's past when we're currently backing Al Queda.

If we want to "fight for freedom" then we need to accept either an ISIS or Al Queda government/caliphate/whatever because that's the only other realistic option over there.

 

I share that sentiment and it's an indirect tie to our national security.

 

I feel you, as I said, it's a lose-lose situation. Obama definitely needed to be a bit more assertive on this. As it stands now, it's too late for that.

 

If we're backing AQ then we're backing Assad. Those are his peeps that he keeps a running supply of troops for.

 

Props to Putin

http://www.rt.com/news/317351-russian-strikes-aleppo-isis/

 

We've been outmaneuvered in this one. Backing a force that's too weak or who doesn't have the resolve to win the fight and not following it up with more direct intervention left an opening for Russia to get involved. I don't really see a way to get out of this one without it looking bad.

On another note, this failed approach of arming the Syrian opposition at least partially vindicates previous decisions to not arm the Kurds against Saddam's Iraq in years gone by. I know that is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, but the potential for failure and a worse situation arising is hard to deny.

 

We've been bombing ISIS for months and months. If you love Russia so much, just ****ing move there. Folks act like Putin is some sort of [dadgum] genius. Why don't you stock up on Rubles then? They must be doing so much better than the dollar.

 

We should bomb Assad's folks and claim that we are bombing ISIS.

 

FYP.

 

I understand what you're saying, IP.

But some portion of the current angst is not so much that we believe that Putin is some sort of strategic genius or powerful leader.....

I think Tennessee wins tomorrow. That is not an endorsement of Botch, but an indictment of Bielema.

 

But the criticisms are often senseless. There was no move that would have satisfied, and now there is smugness about the situation continuing to be bad.

Let's flip it. Let's say Obama DIDN'T want to get involved with Syria, and due to the civil war ISIS got a toe hold. THEN the complaints would be the opposite, despite our actions not impacting the current situation.

Russia's desperate for credibility and to "matter" on the world stage as they've become increasingly marginalized both politically and economically. And yet, so many Americans celebrate their childish macho rhetoric as if it is brilliant rather than recognizing it for the weak and desperate moves of has-beens.

 

I see the US pushing the "freedom" route in which case another Hamas, or ISIS or AQ sweeps in. I think Russia is pushing for stability and keeping a sympathetic government in power. It's not pretty but it doesn't devolve into chaos. My stance is whichever side your on just accept the reality of it. It's a shit sandwich either way, but I'm weary of nation building.

 

I would say Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest contributors to this mess.