Islamic State vs. The World (except Canada)

[Beet]

It's good that we finally have some skin in the game and are supporting someone on the ground, even though it's just the Kurds, who are limited by ethnic/national identity from really ruling the region, and who will always be seen as outsiders.

What we really needed were Sunni Arab allies, similar to the Syrian moderate rebels, who could have governed the majority of the area's non-Kurd population and provided an alternative to ISIS. But hey, this is better than the "don't do stupid stuff", hear no evil, see no evil that was the Obama administration's policy up until a couple months ago.

As for the Kurds, if they are successful on the battlefield perhaps they should use this opportunity to declare independence. Since the West really needs them more than ever now, they have a strong bargaining position.

[Beet]

I'll just chime in and point out that the number of Western hostages the Syrian government has beheaded is still zero.

Those of you who still want another "regime change" are welcome to give one good reason why we should enable the Islamists to seize the other half of Syria.

The Syrian government is why ISIS exists in the first place. Brutal violence begets extremist politics.

[Beet]

I'll just chime in and point out that the number of Western hostages the Syrian government has beheaded is still zero.

Those of you who still want another "regime change" are welcome to give one good reason why we should enable the Islamists to seize the other half of Syria.

The Syrian government is why ISIS exists in the first place. Brutal violence begets extremist politics.

Your confusing Syria with the Bush administration.

Nope.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was your friend Bashar who revived them.

[Beet]

How did Bashar revive them? They exist as blowback against the Assad regime, yet the Islamic rebels who came before them were only marginally more moderate.

They were more moderate enough to spend the first 3 months of 2014 primarily fighting each other even more than the regime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He should never have opened fire on peaceful, pro-democracy protesters in 2011 (who included many Alawites). Mubarak went out with dignity. Now "his people" (meaning the Army) are even back in charge. Assad should have done the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well considering it was founded in 1999, it literally did exist when Saddam was in power. The Iraq war provided it with an opportunity; so did the Syrian war. Everyone agrees that the Iraq war was a mistake. But the results of Syria must be pinned on the Syrian government.

[Beet]

>>>atlas forum

>>>defending brutal dictators

What are you talking about? All I see in this thread is Beet accusing people of being anti-'murican freedom-hating dictator-lovers for not agreeing with him on Syria.

What are you talking about? I've never accused anyone of being an "anti-'murican freedom-hating dictator-lover." The problem with supporting Assad today, as the White House has pointed out, is that it then looks like the U.S. is taking the Shiite side in a Sunni/Shiite civil war. The reason why I.S.I.S. has been successful in the first place is that they have been able to claim to be the only ones representing the Sunnis. Many Sunnis who detest their extremism either support or tolerate them solely for that reason.

[Beet]

Even if we look at Syria through the "liberal-internationalist" lens where everything is about genocide-prevention, anyone who knows the first thing about the Syrian war is that if the rebels, "moderate" or otherwise, win, it is a certainty that there will be a genocide of Syrian Alawites, Christians, Druze, and possibly Kurds.  On the other hand, it isn't possible for Assad to perpetrate a genocide on the Sunnis who are 2/3rds of the population.

So, by liberal-internationalist criteria - that prioritize the minorities' lives over the majority's feels - it is necessary to support Assad or at least allow him to win, in order to prevent a massive genocide.

(And, as others have pointed out, from a realist point of view, IS is a massive threat to American interests while Assad isn't much of one at all.  Assad is the only force in Syria capable of defeating IS, the only one willing to vigorously press the offensive against IS until it is defeated and to continue to vigorously suppress it afterwards, and the only one mutually unwilling to come to some sort of accommodation with IS.  So realism dictates hitching your cart to Assad as well).

I'm not at all sure Assad is capable of defeating IS, or particularly willing. He's most likely happy just holding the western population centers of Syria, the so-called Alawite crescent stretching from Damascus to the coast, plus Aleppo if he can get it (which so far he can't). The moderate rebels have shown more success against IS in the battlefield: From January through March, they dealt IS severe defeats and nearly drove them out of central Syria. It was only the arrival of new equippment and moral from Iraq which turned the tide.

Undoubtedly, due to the horrific massacres carried out by Alawite, Druze and Christian militias, there will certainly be some desire for retaliation. The situation these groups are in is of their own doing, and the U.S. is under no obligation to help them. With that said, it doesn't have to be a genocide. If the United States extracts promises of postwar reconciliation makes clear that Western support is dependent on good behavior, the Western-dependent rebels can be dissuaded from excessive retaliation.

[Beet]

Even if we look at Syria through the "liberal-internationalist" lens where everything is about genocide-prevention, anyone who knows the first thing about the Syrian war is that if the rebels, "moderate" or otherwise, win, it is a certainty that there will be a genocide of Syrian Alawites, Christians, Druze, and possibly Kurds.  On the other hand, it isn't possible for Assad to perpetrate a genocide on the Sunnis who are 2/3rds of the population.

So, by liberal-internationalist criteria - that prioritize the minorities' lives over the majority's feels - it is necessary to support Assad or at least allow him to win, in order to prevent a massive genocide.

(And, as others have pointed out, from a realist point of view, IS is a massive threat to American interests while Assad isn't much of one at all.  Assad is the only force in Syria capable of defeating IS, the only one willing to vigorously press the offensive against IS until it is defeated and to continue to vigorously suppress it afterwards, and the only one mutually unwilling to come to some sort of accommodation with IS.  So realism dictates hitching your cart to Assad as well).

I'm not at all sure Assad is capable of defeating IS, or particularly willing. He's most likely happy just holding the western population centers of Syria, the so-called Alawite crescent stretching from Damascus to the coast, plus Aleppo if he can get it (which so far he can't). The moderate rebels have shown more success against IS in the battlefield: From January through March, they dealt IS severe defeats and nearly drove them out of central Syria. It was only the arrival of new equippment and moral from Iraq which turned the tide.

Undoubtedly, due to the horrific massacres carried out by Alawite, Druze and Christian militias, there will certainly be some desire for retaliation. The situation these groups are in is of their own doing, and the U.S. is under no obligation to help them. With that said, it doesn't have to be a genocide. If the United States extracts promises of postwar reconciliation makes clear that Western support is dependent on good behavior, the Western-dependent rebels can be dissuaded from excessive retaliation.

The idea that minority groups are collectively responsible for what some militias are doing is absurd.

No more absurd than the idea that the whole Syrian opposition is collectively responsible for some extremists.

[Beet]

Amazing ISIS documentary by VICE News:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94

With Western journalists being beheaded left and right, these guys walked straight into Raqqa and got a tour from the Islamic State itself.