What should we do about Assad + ISIS/L?

[NeverAgain]

This has been an interesting topic, especially since the debates. I am personally against destabilizing Syria right when we are attempting to fight a incredibly evolving power in the Middle-East. I would vote for Option 4, as the no-fly zone only creates a lose-lose situation if impeded upon. Either we attack the flier (Russia) and threaten WW3, or we risk looking foolish + weak. Assad is a problem that needs to be faced, but not before we deal with the awful threat of ISIS. My opinion at least, love to hear your guys's!

[dead0man]

I, like most people, have no idea.  But I can promise you one thing, no matter what option we actually end up going with, the assholes in the future will tell us it was the wrong choice.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A whole lot of bad choices tbh

[mencken]

Look the other way while giving Russia tacit permission to treat Raqqa like Grozny.

[Frodo]

There will be no prospect of peace until Bashar al-Assad is removed from power.  The rebels are adamant about that.  So our first priority should be to negotiate his removal.  Once that is done, then everyone can gang-up on the Islamic State. 

[dead0man]

There will be no prospect of peace until Bashar al-Assad is removed from power.  The rebels are adamant about that.  So our first priority should be to negotiate his removal.  Once that is done, then everyone can gang-up on the Islamic State. 

And that's the last thing Iran and Russia wants, we don't exactly have a good tract record recently getting those two to do what we want.  Embarrassingly bad even.

[The Last Northerner]

Look the other way while giving Russia tacit permission to treat Raqqa like Grozny.

[ElectionsGuy]

We should do one of two things: 1) Nothing, let others take care of ISIS or Assad or 2) Take them out with incredible military power in a short amount of time, Gulf War style, without nation building, and without an idiotic WW3 starter that is a 'no-fly zone'. On Assad, its not our business to topple dictators and often the results of doing so lead to great calamities. We should've learned that a long time ago.

Voted option 4.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Seriously though, I think the US and Russia should order a ceasefire in X days, and any parties not prepared to abide by such terms should be treated as enemies of the peace. That would include ISIS (obviously) but also any pro- and anti-Assad factions and groupings. From then on, play good cop, bad cop with Russia to oust Assad and give him exile, install a transitional leader in Syria from the current ruling party to prepare for elections in X years, send targeted drones after the leadership of factions still fighting in Iraq, prepare for an independent Kurd state and try to reform Iraqi governance under non-stupid means (i.e. no al-Malaki/Shia supremacists). In the long term, gather the leadership of Iran and Saudi Arabia and continually bash their heads together until they agree to wind down their childish feud; and generally blockade MENA dictatorships/rebel groups from arms imports.

no fly is basically garbage

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Option 2, but realistically, option 4 as EG noted.

[dead0man]

Seriously though, I think the US and Russia should order a ceasefire in X days, and any parties not prepared to abide by such terms should be treated as enemies of the peace. That would include ISIS (obviously) but also any pro- and anti-Assad factions and groupings. From then on, play good cop, bad cop with Russia to oust Assad and give him exile, install a transitional leader in Syria from the current ruling party to prepare for elections in X years, send targeted drones after the leadership of factions still fighting in Iraq, prepare for an independent Kurd state and try to reform Iraqi governance under non-stupid means (i.e. no al-Malaki/Shia supremacists). In the long term, gather the leadership of Iran and Saudi Arabia and continually bash their heads together until they agree to wind down their childish feud; and generally blockade MENA dictatorships/rebel groups from arms imports.

no fly is basically garbage

Lots of good ideas, but like Frodo's, you've got to get Russia and Iran to play ball in getting rid of Assad, and they are not going to do that and we're too soft to properly pressure them into anything.  I do agree getting rid of Assad would be huge, but we lost our opportunity to do that when Russia got seriously into the game.  Should have done it two years ago....hell, should have done it decades ago, but whatever.  His wife was so nice!

[ingemann]

Here's what USA could do (and the consequences)

1: Occupying Syria Iraq style; consequences: We would continued violence and ethnic cleansing and a Salafist regime taking power, and a bloody civil war would break out shortly after USA leaves.
2: A real occupation, USA (and allies) place 1 million man in Syria in a several decades long occupation, Syria is remade into a federation or confederation. Syria are allowed to have election but the American occupation forces keep a right to ban parties, medias and veto laws, USA make a trade agreement where all trade barriers between USA and Syria are removed in favour of Syria; after several decades we would likely see a somewhat functional Syrian state.
3: USA remove Assad; genocide, decades long civil war until several Syrian successor states are establihed.
4: USA support the Kurds (what USA do now) against ISIS; ISIS collapse, a autonome Kurdish region are established along the Turkish border, the rebels are slowly bleed todeath by the regime, and Assad likely stay in power with the north and east split between the autonome Kurdish region and Pakistan-style tribal areas.
5: USA stay out, Kobane would have fallen and ISIS would have continued to grow, until Russia and Iran had intervened more active.
6: USA support Assad; it would have alienated the American allies in the region for a quite unpleasant regime (through better than many American allies in the region).

Seeing that USA today would be unwilling to embrace plan 2, I don't think USA have handled this badly. They have given the rebels as little support as they could get away with, they have been as activistic as they needed to be to push Iran to the negotiation over their nuclear arms and to make their allies in the region too angry.

[DemPGH]

NOTA. When either one threatens us here, we stop them here. Otherwise, we stay away.

"Conquest is easy, control is not."
-Kirk, "Mirror, Mirror"

[ingemann]

NOTA. When either one threatens us here, we stop them here. Otherwise, we stay away.

"Conquest is easy, control is not."
-Kirk, "Mirror, Mirror"

Conquest are usual much harder than control. USA could easily have "controlled" Iraq and Afghanistan, even without increased brutality. It would just demand USA was willing to use the number soldiers which was needed for a occupation (a general rule are 1 soldier for every 20 people in the occupied country) and treated their government as what they were Quesling regimes which was in power because of American power, rather than pretend they had any legitimacy among the general civilian population, from there USA could have developed democratic institution and then allowed free elections.

[angus]

NOTA. When either one threatens us here, we stop them here. Otherwise, we stay away.

"Conquest is easy, control is not."
-Kirk, "Mirror, Mirror"

I think we might have found a policy that you and I actually agree on.  I also voted neither.  Both federal and state legislatures do not show willingness fund the domestic affairs for more than about a year at a time without a pretense of brinksmanship (based on budgetary concerns), and policing the globe should be secondary after feeding our own people.  Once in a while we are successful in our imperial exercises, but those serendipitious successes are not a guarantee of long-term success.  It isn't a sustainable situation, nor does it reap long-term moral or economic rewards.

"You got lucky."
  --Marlena (to Kirk), also from "Mirror, Mirror"

[Torie]

I have zero idea what the least bad option is, but we should set up a safe zone for all those Syrian refugees in Syria.

[Why]

Pray, there is nothing to be done but pray. The situation is too big a mess to be solved by humans, so pray, pray, pray.

And help as many people as possible by giving them somewhere to live where they will not be killed in the horrific conflict.

But mostly pray.

[Kingpoleon]

Seriously though, I think the US and Russia should order a ceasefire in X days, and any parties not prepared to abide by such terms should be treated as enemies of the peace. That would include ISIS (obviously) but also any pro- and anti-Assad factions and groupings. From then on, play good cop, bad cop with Russia to oust Assad and give him exile, install a transitional leader in Syria from the current ruling party to prepare for elections in X years, send targeted drones after the leadership of factions still fighting in Iraq, prepare for an independent Kurd state and try to reform Iraqi governance under non-stupid means (i.e. no al-Malaki/Shia supremacists). In the long term, gather the leadership of Iran and Saudi Arabia and continually bash their heads together until they agree to wind down their childish feud; and generally blockade MENA dictatorships/rebel groups from arms imports.

no fly is basically garbage

Turkey, our main counterbalance to Russian influence in the Middle East, would really hate this idea.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Well partly I don't care about what Turkey does anymore. The US needs to start treating its allies with a bit more contempt tbh (well tough love, anyway).

Actually now that I remember, the PKK doesn't actually support an independent Kurdistan anymore; rather they went sort of left-libertarian confederation remaking of the entire area.

[defe07]

Well partly I don't care about what Turkey does anymore. The US needs to start treating its allies with a bit more contempt tbh (well tough love, anyway).

Actually now that I remember, the PKK doesn't actually support an independent Kurdistan anymore; rather they went sort of left-libertarian confederation remaking of the entire area.

I've always viewed Turkey as wishy-washy on ISIS. We need to focus on cutting ISIS' head off by gutting its oil trade with others and gutting their funding.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Turkey (like a lot of countries) think ISIS can be used for their own geopolitical ends.

[Seneca]

Syria cannot be put back together.

I'll say it again, Syria cannot be put back together.

The Syrian state is one of the many casualties of European colonialism. But it's far to late to do anything about it and me whining about Sykes-Picot won't change a thing. So, first of all, the US should stop trying to put humpty-dumpty back together again.

Then what should the US do? First, it should acknowledge that Assad is not going anywhere. He has the support of both Russia and Iran, two of the most important players in the region, as well as the support of most non-Sunnis in Syria. Sure, the high body count among SAF troops is causing some unrest, as is the collapse of Syrian pound an ensuing economic misery, but in the minds of the vast majority of non-Sunnis, it's better than an American brokered peace. The war has created too much animosity between the Sunni Arabs and everyone else in Syria. Sure, Assad himself may die or disappear if things on the homefront get bad enough, but he'll just be replaced by a similar strongman. The western half of Syria, from the Alawite coastal region to the Druze heartland south of Damascus must retain its autonomy in any peace settlement from the east.

So the US should work with Assad? No! To the Sunni Arabs, Assad is the devil (and for good reason); allying oneself with the devil won't do us any favors. But there's no need to be public about it. Just stop saber rattling and let Iran and Russia support their puppet unmolested. The US needs to focus on facilitating peace in the east. The good news is that the Islamic State is collapsing. The ISF's recapturing of Tikrit and Ramadi, the SAF's push north, and the SDF's (Syrian Democratic Forces, an alliance between the Kurdysh YPG/J and moderate Arab, Assyrian, Circassian, and Turkemen militias) salient across the Euphrates towards Manbij are all symptomatic of a general collapse of the Islamic State as a conventional force. Great! Then what should the US do?

The US should continue giving the SDF air support to help them seize as much Islamic State territory as possible over the next several months. Eventually, however, the SDF will run into the SAF (Assad, remember), at which point the US should encourage the SDF to maintain its ceasefire with Assad. The SDF (and before it was formed, the Kurds) have no interest in antagonizing Assad--see the Battle of Al-Hasakah--but when the scramble for territory is on, confrontations could flair up. This is where having open diplomatic channels with Russia is vital, as Assad is more likely to see the SDF as Rebels Who Must Be Crushed than the SDF is to open up another front.

If a stable border and ceasefire can be created between the SAF and SDF, the next phase of the war is relatively straightforward, though it could take years more. Assad will finish grinding up the Islamist rebels around Idlib, led by Al-Nusra, as well as mopping up other rebel outposts around Homs and Damascus (perhaps with the US intervening to save the Southern Front), while the SDF campaign south, clearing Ar-Raqqah and following the Euphrates down to Deir-ez-Zor. If all of this can be accomplished, negotiations between Assad and the SDF, facilitated by Russia and the US, can begin in order to formalize the division of Syria in two (likely with two SDF exclaves in Afrin and the hinterlands of Daraa).

The odds of this actually happening are rather low. US politicians have shown no interest in finding a settlement, preferring to saber rattle with Assad, Iran, and Russia and play machiavellian games with "the rebels." Turkey is rabidly anti-Kurdish, and until (unless) the SDF manages to expand south and incorporate a large number of Arab units, it will be viewed as merely a PKK front, objections which the US is likely to take seriously (to the detriment of all). And to top it off, it looks like elements within the KRG (Iraqi Kurdistan) are preparing to make a play for independence (see their new "anti-ISIS" trench, which demarcates a border with Shia Iraq); if that happens, you can expect another civil war in Iraq, something which will give the Islamic State much needed breathing room.

Disclaimers aside, if the US is serious about finding peace in Syria, it's needs to stop poking Assad, give up the ghost of a unified Syria, and support the only faction with the strength and vision to unite Sunni Syria, the SDF.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Option 4 or 2. Option one would create chaos in the middle east.

[Leinad]

We should do one of two things: 1) Nothing, let others take care of ISIS or Assad or 2) Take them out with incredible military power in a short amount of time, Gulf War style, without nation building, and without an idiotic WW3 starter that is a 'no-fly zone'. On Assad, its not our business to topple dictators and often the results of doing so lead to great calamities. We should've learned that a long time ago.

Voted option 4.

Once again ElectionsGuy says exactly what I came to say, almost word-for-word.

Options 2 (nothing) and 4 (just IS(IS/IL), but no "no-fly zone" BS) are the only halfway sane options. Anything else and my faith in the US government to make foreign policy decisions will be obliterated...even further than now...if that's possible.

[pho]

Assad and ISIS have a symbiotic relationship, we should eliminate them both with an overwhelming ground force. Quick, clean, and without lofty goals of promoting democracy.

I honestly don't care about the Syrian rebels and would not arm them, the campaign would be about removing threats to US interests rather than nation building. I don't really care what happens to Syria post Assad, Russia could annex it for all it matters to me.