What To Do About Syria

[buttslinger]

What has four years of bombing achieved so far? And what do you when 'they' submit?

As far as four years of bombing goes, that's kind of a GESTURE more than bombing. People forget that if the United States really puts it's back into something, they could take over Iraq in a week, or certainly blow up the entire infrastructure of Syria. The problem really is that "they" will never submit, and why should they?
You can bet your bottom dollar the CIA has it's eyes focused firmly on Syria, and has decided the best course of action is the only real course of action, let things play out. As soon as the USA develops a practical electric car, (25 years?) then the middle east will be broke. What's left will be FAMILY PROBLEMS, no need to get in the middle of those. Then all we'll have to worry about is Israel and Iran starting WWIII.

[buttslinger]

I notice DINO VELVET started this thread, the Syria War has being going on, what, ..five years?

All the towns in Syria are rubble, refugees are flooding into Europe, and in just the last two weeks, because of Paris, things have come to a head.

I have finally figured out why I thought ISIS sounds like a cartoon villain name, it is the name of the spy organization on the TV show ARCHER.
If this sounds trivial, that's part of the problem OVER HERE,....ISIS is messing up my pain over the Redskins humiliating loss to the Carolina Panthers, The reality of war in Syria is messing up my Thanksgiving plans. To be honest, there is NOBODY in my life that I sit down with and have a serious talk with about Syria, other than interest, there is no "GO TO" place to get the facts, the War is completely different if you tune into FOX News, ..or MSNBC.

The way I see it is that the War in Syria is the center of the mess, and the problem is the USA wants to get suckered into saving Assad's job and cleaning up the trillion dollar mess he made.

It's a clusterfuck of the highest order, lawless gangs living out their "HOSTEL MOVIE" fantasies robbing banks and stealing billions of dollars worth of oil to finance an orgy of dark ages violence on "THEM"

Everything is so up in the air over there that you can't get a straight answer out of anyone, and the Republican candidates are deliberately skewing the narrative to suit themselves. I think it boils down to either declaring war on Syria,...or NOT. And we're not going to. Ever.

Sucking the USA and Europe into a war against Syria is what ISIS wants, so maybe you'll see even more outbreaks of terror in the near future???? I am guessing. I have no clue.

Extremist Islam reaches way past Syria and Iraq, there's actually more bloodshed in Africa, but you don't hear about that.

There are lots of other factors to consider, like....
Is it a GOOD thing for Democrats to let the Republicans be forced to drone on about this for a year?
Where is Iran in this?
What is the best possible outcome for the USA in all of this?
What is the best solution for the Middle East?
What is the best possible outcome for ME!!!......BUTTSLINGER???!!

What are Hillary's plans? Can we turn lemons into lemonade and hurt Russia, Iran, and our major global enemies in one big hand of International 5-card stud?

Is there a way to make ISIS .........LOOK BAD??? (ha ha ha)

Who do we actually WANT in charge of this mess when it's all over, and does it really matter, or more importantly, can we pull it off?
Do we want our American Boys in uniform having dreams about killing civilians the rest of their lives?
We sure killed a lot in Iraq.

Its us vrsus them, and we cant even say who "US" is, or "THEM" is.

To be or not to be. Double double, toil and trouble
Hurly Burly to THE MAX!!!

[Misterman1993]

We should just leave Syria altogether and have the USA have a more inward foreign policy. The days of meddling in other nations must come to an end. It's costing us a lot more, than what we initially bargained for.

[fred41]

We should just leave Syria altogether and have the USA have a more inward foreign policy. The days of meddling in other nations must come to an end. It's costing us a lot more, than what we initially bargained for.

I believe that's no longer an option...at this point in time how can it be?

[buttslinger]

I believe that's no longer an option...at this point in time how can it be?

What is every man woman and child paying every year for the CIA, NSA, and FBI to keep eyes on every Muslim person here AND abroad? A thousand dollars?

Sympathies to the San Bernardino victims, but that "terrorist cell" was a joke.

If we go "ALL IN" in Syria and Iraq, you know that means we help Assad and the Russians, and then end up paying half a trillion to rebuild the place.
I guess the wise thing is to talk to Hillary and her people and set up a little foreplay before she gets ta' fuckin' fo' real in 2017.

But without knowing anything, I think IGNORING the death and carnage over there is fantastic. Just like we do in Africa. And lots of other places.
Murder the National Debt if you want to extinguish the greatest threat to American Liberty. Now that's a sobering fight.

[fred41]

I'm not sure what you think San Bernardino has to do with my quote.
And I didn't say we had to go "All in"...but we're already involved and so are some of our closest European allies...and obviously some countries that will never really be considered allies. Shit like that is nuanced. President Obama is already scaling it up just a touch...we can have a debate as to whether we should be more involved or less, but if you think at this point we're just going to completely close shop and go home then you are delusional. Most Republican candidates and Hillary Clinton are all mostly for the things our president is already doing...some just trying to sound tougher doing it.

....and I NEVER think ignoring the death and carnage in other countries is fantastic, but unfortunately we can't always get involved in ways that I would like to...and for the record, I wish we did get more more involved with some of the mass murder and kidnappings in Africa....But just because you can't solve every problem doesn't mean you shouldn't try to help solve some of them...because changing your Facebook avatar to the colors of the French Flag or hash tagging the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria is nice, but it don't mean or do shit if you never get involved with anything global.
...and even though we sometimes debate about taking in Syrian refugees, we will take them. But you know what? Taking in refugees is also pointless if your not going to even try to do something about the mess going on there.

Interesting how you're voting for Hillary, but your foreign policy sounds more like Rand Paul.

[buttslinger]

Interesting how you're voting for Hillary, but your foreign policy sounds more like Rand Paul.

I probably misunderstood you. sorry.

[peejaye]

Keep the f**k out of there!

Doesn't history tell you anything?

[nitron]

Where's the UN, why aren't they sending in troops like they did during Korean conflict in the 50's. This should be an "International- community- problem".The UN should force a negotiated agreement as well, which is happening now, (good). The US should not send in ground troops at all. Now this has become Sunni vs Shea regional war, and the US had a big hand in it, so they should keep on the down low.
The migrants should be helped and kept comfy at the camps now(but with haste, push negotiations and International pressure to end the war). But I fear most migrants are religious conservatives in there political and social outlook, and as a Left Lib , I don't want them here. It's a pain in the ass to fight all the culture wars all over again. To me, there no different than letting in a bunch of Evangelical conservatives into the West. No thank you. Keep them out. I know that it's declining demographics that have spurred the Western Governments to allow them into our countries, but that's only a temp solution to our long term problem.
Lastly , we in the West should switch to renewable' s , stop feeding the real Troll's

[Stavros]

Last year the Russians entered Syria en masse in a 'surge' that was desiged to buttress the armed forces of the Syrian Government that were under pressure at the time. It was also claimed to be part of a major offensive against Daesh although the finer point is that the Russians defined anyone and everyone opposed to the government of Bashar al-Asad as a terrorist and thus made no distinction between rebel groups supported by the US and NATO and thus could divert their bombers from Daesh itself to attack targets in Idlib in the North-East and Aleppo.
With the Ceasefire Agreement in place in February this year, in March Putin declared 'Mission Accomplished' and began withdrawing the troops that had been deployed to Syria. And, indeed, the Syrian Armed Forces did appear to retain their grip on most of the country.

However, the ceasefire agreement has failed to stop the carnage in Aleppo and the most recent attempt by rebels there to break through the government lines has exposed yet again the temporary nature of 'victory' in this war which some analysts believed had reached its 5-year cycle of exhaustion and would gradually wind down, as has been noted in civil wars of the past.

The current points of interest focus on the talks Putin held with Erdogan this week, and the drivel that comprises Donald Trump and his supporters views on this conflict.

The point of interest in the first concerns a NATO ally holding cordial talks with the President of Russia with whom Turkey appeared to be on course for a war of their own after shooting down a Russian jet in late 2015. Since the attempted coup against Erdogan and his counter-coup that has shredded the top echelons of the armed forces, shut down newspapers, schools, universities, and rounded up thousands of journalists, teachers, soldiers and civilians, Erdogan has had to face the fact that for the time being the Turkish military is at its weakest since it joined NATO in 1951. This is good news for Putin because it means that a crucial but militarily weak NATO member in the eastern Mediterranean region is a benefit to Russia, and an additional benefit because Turkey has been fighting for the removal of Russia's ally Bashar al-Asad but clearly has no military strength to maintain this objective.

Turkey benefits, if at all, through the support it may seek from Russia to attack Kurdish forces in Syria in much the same way that Russia helped out the Syrian Armed forces last year. There have also been discussion between Turkey and Russia on joint projects in gas pipelines and nuclear power development.

These talks however brush up against the other angle, because the primary focus of Turkey in weakening if not destroying Kurdish political ambitions and using Russia to help them brings them into conflict with the USA and NATO who have been backing the Kurds and, as far as it goes, have been the primary agents of the decline of Daesh in Syria and Iraq while Russia and Syria were busy shredding civilian life in other parts of Syria, bearing in mind that Russia has insisted it has never killed a single civilian in Syria (but they have killed 'terrorists').

Turkey's move and its criticism of the USA for not extraditing Mohamed Gulen clearly poses a problem for NATO and one being relished by Putin who may take some form of military action against the Ukraine over the current spat over Crimea just to show NATO has no practical response and is weak, and the Presidency of Obama weak too; but it may also be an attempt by Turkey to bargain with the US for Gulen over closer Russian involvement (as in 'prove to us we are allies and hand him over').

Trump would doubtless continue to claim this exposes Obama's weakness, and his supporters, such as Piers Morgan, for example have claimed Obama has 'zero interest doing anything tangible to really deal with ISIS' in spite of the facts showing the complete opposite. Trump admires strong leaders like Putin, but it is not clear how he would respond to this current situation given that he has already criticised NATO members for not 'paying their dues' and lumbering the US with their problems. He has also repeated the rubbish about Obama, or Mrs Clinton or both having been the creators of Daesh which alone reveals his pathetic ignorance of a history recent enough for him to have lived through and, indeed, to have asked people who were in Syria and Iraq to explain to him.

The depressing truth is that the Syrian government will continue to bomb the rebels into submission with no regard for the human cost, and that Russia will continue to support the government, and the US/NATO and others continue to support a weak and divided rebel movement that includes extremists with no coherent agenda of their own. Mrs Clinton has, it is claimed, been thinking of a 're-set' with Russian relations, and/or the imposition of 'no-fly zones' in northern Syria, surely impossible to achieve without Russian and Turkish agreement, but with all sides facing the possible scenarios that either Syria will revert to the one-party state that it was before the war started, or that a form of cantonization will take place creating autonomous zones as has happened in Iraq.

I suppose the question in an election year for the US is what does US policy in Syria look like over the next year, does either candidate offer change -and change that can bring the conflict to an end? Can either of them use their new mandate to bring the parties together for a conclusive deal that will leave Asad in place on the basis of political reform that in time will create a new Republic?