Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

That's because ISIS is not an immediate threat to Assad while Jaysh Al Fateh, Jaysh Al Islam and the Free Syrian Army are.

Yes.

Russia is similar to Turkey in this regard: using hitting ISIS as an excuse to strike their least favorite rebel groups and while striving for their preferred victor in the conflict: with Russia backing Assad, and Turkey wanting his head on a pike. Only time will tell if there will be any victors in this war.

[Zangi]

Everyone is a loser.  Just that many lose more then others.

[smjjames]

That's because ISIS is not an immediate threat to Assad while Jaysh Al Fateh, Jaysh Al Islam and the Free Syrian Army are.

Yes.

Russia is similar to Turkey in this regard: using hitting ISIS as an excuse to strike their least favorite rebel groups and while striving for their preferred victor in the conflict: with Russia backing Assad, and Turkey wanting his head on a pike. Only time will tell if there will be any victors in this war.

Yeah, it's sad that the civil war there has grown beyond the origional reason that it started and has become a pawn to the interests of regional powers (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia) and other major powers (Iran as a major regional power, the US, Russia, Europe).

Also, I wonder how unified Syria actually is, what with so many factions in the civil war, though I don't know if any of the anti-assad groups are fighting each other.

Edit: I do know of the Kurdish groups in Syria, those guys will definetly want to go for full independence if possible.

[Vilanat]

Yeah, i think partitioning Syria is the only option left. The north for the Kurds, the South for the Druze, the West for the Alawites and the Center and East for the Sunnis. sadly, Turkey and Iran would never agree. Russia might though. i don't think putin is stupid to think Assad could ever retain control in those parts.

[smjjames]

Yeah, i think partitioning Syria is the only option left. The north for the Kurds, the South for the Druze, the West for the Alawites and the Center and East for the Sunnis. sadly, Turkey and Iran would never agree. Russia might though. i don't think putin is stupid to think Assad could ever retain control in those parts.

It'd be something for the Syrians themselves to decide whether they would partition up or not. Not sure if Iran really has an opinion whether Syria is partitioned or not, they just want to retain an ally and they may or may not get an ally out of a partitioning. Iran and Turkey shouldn't have a say in it since it's not their country, but it won't stop them from trying to influence it.

[Vilanat]

Up until now it was the alawites who decided for the rest, so it would be a welcoming change if we somehow manage to let syrians decide for themselves. I don't see a referendum any time soon though, especially not a clean one. it would have to be up to the various sect leaders to decide if they want independence and since Assad, aka The Butcher from Damascus, is not someone the world should listen to his opinion, it would have to be carried out by the UN/West/Russia.

[Loud Whispers]

I have to disagree: While Daesh is horrible, the ophthalmologist and his forces are still the bigger evil. The relevant number here is five: It's the ratio of civilian casualties caused by the doctor's forces vs civilian casualties caused by Daesh. Daesh will be destroyed regardless of what happens right now, but Assad's regime has a chance of survival - and thus must be dealt with more urgently.

Also one important thing to mention is why Assad's forces have killed more than ISIS; Lion Loyalists use indiscriminate artillery and bombing to strike their enemy and keep themselves safe whilst ISIS has had their armour and artillery bombed to hell by Western forces - they do not have equal means, but this speaks to no show of intent. The allied strategic bombing over the Germans was out of no intent of genocide, it was an attempt to win the war and it can't be forgotten that the Syrian government is ultimately at war for their survival. Were ISIS to win I do not believe they would be nearly as reasonable to Western negotiations as Assad would be, as Assad can be coerced and forced in ways that would also not destroy what's left of Syria. The most stable of two evils, as it were. Just as dismantling Iraq's army left a power vacuum as soon as US forces left, dismantling the Syrian army will do exactly the same thing. People seem to have forgotten how quickly the "moderate rebels" Western nations funded turned into ISIS. The longer the war goes on the worse things will get, the more people will die and the more human rights abuses will continue. Counter productively, it will also mean people in Assad's regime will go unpunished, as the chaos means international law does nothing for Syria.

I have to agree with you there. War is terrible. Civilians will die in war (especially when the enemy uses them as human shields). Bombs are blind. I have been saying for years that one of the biggest mistakes made in Syria by the West, is to have demonized and alienated Assad. IS might have never gotten a hold on Syria if UN had sent forces to support Assad a few years ago. Hell, Assad would probably never have felt he would need to use gas and fuel bombs (or at least not dared do so with coalition forces riding next to him) on his population if he had had UN help.
It's not like Assad is doing worse things than for example, the US did to Vietnamese villages. Hey, they were hiding and supporting VC, right? Arguably, he is doing less bad, since he is not invading a foreign country, but defending his own.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There is no other option besides foreign occupation, Assad is really not the bigger of the two evils. Hell he's not just fighting a defensive war, if he loses then his people will all be purged - a third of fighting age Alawite men have already died, they cannot afford to lose more fighting extensively on the ground.

Yeah, i think partitioning Syria is the only option left. The north for the Kurds, the South for the Druze, the West for the Alawites and the Center and East for the Sunnis. sadly, Turkey and Iran would never agree. Russia might though. i don't think putin is stupid to think Assad could ever retain control in those parts.

Partitioning would be a colossally foolish idea, even worse than attempts in Nigeria or the successful partitioning of Pakistan and India. A divided Syria would simply not be able to resist Jihadism and even after the dust settles the long term effects of proxy groups all trying to effect their will on the fragments would reignite conflict just as in Yemen or Bahrein. Only, magnify that religious tension as the pieces would also border Israel, which hasn't had the best tract record of not taking advantage of regional instability, and you can guarantee at the very least Saudi Arabia and Iran would begin playing in this new ground. And that'd be after I reckon another 10 years of fighting, minimum. Assad's regime must end, and ISIS will fail to create its Caliphate; but the regime cannot be crushed without a pillar to replace it and ISIS will not be crushed if all efforts are not focused on it.

[smjjames]

I have to disagree: While Daesh is horrible, the ophthalmologist and his forces are still the bigger evil. The relevant number here is five: It's the ratio of civilian casualties caused by the doctor's forces vs civilian casualties caused by Daesh. Daesh will be destroyed regardless of what happens right now, but Assad's regime has a chance of survival - and thus must be dealt with more urgently.

Also one important thing to mention is why Assad's forces have killed more than ISIS; Lion Loyalists use indiscriminate artillery and bombing to strike their enemy and keep themselves safe whilst ISIS has had their armour and artillery bombed to hell by Western forces - they do not have equal means, but this speaks to no show of intent. The allied strategic bombing over the Germans was out of no intent of genocide, it was an attempt to win the war and it can't be forgotten that the Syrian government is ultimately at war for their survival. Were ISIS to win I do not believe they would be nearly as reasonable to Western negotiations as Assad would be, as Assad can be coerced and forced in ways that would also not destroy what's left of Syria. The most stable of two evils, as it were. Just as dismantling Iraq's army left a power vacuum as soon as US forces left, dismantling the Syrian army will do exactly the same thing. People seem to have forgotten how quickly the "moderate rebels" Western nations funded turned into ISIS. The longer the war goes on the worse things will get, the more people will die and the more human rights abuses will continue. Counter productively, it will also mean people in Assad's regime will go unpunished, as the chaos means international law does nothing for Syria.

I have to agree with you there. War is terrible. Civilians will die in war (especially when the enemy uses them as human shields). Bombs are blind. I have been saying for years that one of the biggest mistakes made in Syria by the West, is to have demonized and alienated Assad. IS might have never gotten a hold on Syria if UN had sent forces to support Assad a few years ago. Hell, Assad would probably never have felt he would need to use gas and fuel bombs (or at least not dared do so with coalition forces riding next to him) on his population if he had had UN help.
It's not like Assad is doing worse things than for example, the US did to Vietnamese villages. Hey, they were hiding and supporting VC, right? Arguably, he is doing less bad, since he is not invading a foreign country, but defending his own.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There is no other option besides foreign occupation, Assad is really not the bigger of the two evils. Hell he's not just fighting a defensive war, if he loses then his people will all be purged - a third of fighting age Alawite men have already died, they cannot afford to lose more fighting extensively on the ground.

Seems like the only real solution these days to the MidEast problems is foriegn occupation in some form, as long as it's not by the US.

And yeah, given how totalitarian rule by a minority has gone in the MidEast, they're facing either heavy persecution or perhaps continuation of the civil war at best or genocide at the worst.

Yeah, i think partitioning Syria is the only option left. The north for the Kurds, the South for the Druze, the West for the Alawites and the Center and East for the Sunnis. sadly, Turkey and Iran would never agree. Russia might though. i don't think putin is stupid to think Assad could ever retain control in those parts.

Partitioning would be a colossally foolish idea, even worse than attempts in Nigeria or the successful partitioning of Pakistan and India. A divided Syria would simply not be able to resist Jihadism and even after the dust settles the long term effects of proxy groups all trying to effect their will on the fragments would reignite conflict just as in Yemen or Bahrein. Only, magnify that religious tension as the pieces would also border Israel, which hasn't had the best tract record of not taking advantage of regional instability, and you can guarantee at the very least Saudi Arabia and Iran would begin playing in this new ground. And that'd be after I reckon another 10 years of fighting, minimum. Assad's regime must end, and ISIS will fail to create its Caliphate; but the regime cannot be crushed without a pillar to replace it and ISIS will not be crushed if all efforts are not focused on it.

Even if Syria doesn't go through partitioning, I can still see the Kurdish areas going for independence at the earliest opportunity.

[Loud Whispers]

The way I see it the Kurds are either going to be flattened by Turkey or best case scenario retain and in some areas gain autonomous regions where they are protected by the government and allowed to be in peace. That is of course, if the Kurds wouldn't just rather have their own state; as long as they'd have Western backing (real one, not like that crap in Libya where it was all words and no action) then they could manage it.
I think I have to add that I'm not condoning Assad's actions, whilst opposing actions to bomb him. Same way in hindsight I consider the Iraq war a mistake, even though it rightfully toppled a dictator massacring his own people with chemical weapons it left a vacuum for people much worse to come. Sometimes a missile is not the best tool forwards.

*EDIT
And on the topic of US occupation, the USA is really unfortunate in that no matter who is in charge one half of the country will be using occupation of foreign nations against the other. Yet it is usually the withdrawal of US troops that causes the most problems, not the presence of them. US troops withdraw from Iraq, Iraq implodes in stunning rapidity. US troops redeploy from Europe to Eastern Asia, the Crimean crisis begins. Well, at least history will say they tried. You should never leave until the people dependent on you can stand on their own.

[smjjames]

I don't think the withdrawl of troops from Europe had as much to do with Putin invading Crimea as the withdrawl had to do with the unrest that was happening in Ukraine before the Olympics. Rather it was Putin who chose to take advantage of the opportunity and the redeployment was just part of the opportunity.

Also, on Iraq, we wanted to leave some troops in there, but the government said 'nope, we don't want ya' and we couldn't come to some sort of agreement. I don't think Obama would have been able to force Iraq to accept some troops even if he wanted to.

[Loud Whispers]

Putin taking advantage of US redeployment sure sounds significant to me
Also I'm aware Obama wanted to US troops remain in Iraq. Thanks Obama. This could've been avoided!

[Morrigi]

At this point, the difference between the FSA and al-Qaeda is academic. At this point any actual moderate rebels have fled the country, defected to (more) Islamist groups, or been killed.

[smjjames]

We may have to decide how far left/right we'll have to accept if there really are no moderates left. I suppose as long as they aren't calling for the death of Americans....

Figuring out who replaces Assad is a real problem.

[Loud Whispers]

Moderates still remain, just not with significant force. Right or left doesn't matter in this, what matters is how strong and how extreme the next government is, and that doesn't even matter until Syria is under a government's control to begin with.

[Vilanat]

Partitioning would be a colossally foolish idea, even worse than attempts in Nigeria or the successful partitioning of Pakistan and India. A divided Syria would simply not be able to resist Jihadism and even after the dust settles the long term effects of proxy groups all trying to effect their will on the fragments would reignite conflict just as in Yemen or Bahrein. Only, magnify that religious tension as the pieces would also border Israel, which hasn't had the best tract record of not taking advantage of regional instability, and you can guarantee at the very least Saudi Arabia and Iran would begin playing in this new ground. And that'd be after I reckon another 10 years of fighting, minimum. Assad's regime must end, and ISIS will fail to create its Caliphate; but the regime cannot be crushed without a pillar to replace it and ISIS will not be crushed if all efforts are not focused on it.

I disagree. we are way past the scenario that without any central government a power vacuum might occur and Jihadism takes it place. it has already happened and we are witnessing the full horrors of that scenario for the past 3 years now. Syria is already divided and Assad only remaining power is his ability to bomb civilians and because of his history, he or anyone remotely close to him will never be able to govern or control the parts of Syria outside the alawites and shiites regions.

The Druze might be willing to remain living under that regime, because the Druze faith puts them in a position to always favour their host (It's literally their religious duty) but the regime forces will never be able to fend off Al-Nusra from those parts without a strong commitment and active cooperation by the Druze and so far they haven't joined the regime military by large numbers and probably will not do so even if Assad steps down only for another Alawite to replace him.

As seen by the Kurds, the most effective way to combat the Jihadists is through Nationalistic sentiments. ISIS/Al qaeda/Al nusra/Jaysh Al Islam will struggle to penetrate into a dominant alawite, druze or kurdish states as they can easily do so in a relatively more plural areas with bigger Sunni population and the partitioning is already taking place sometimes naturally (Shiites running away from Sunnis etc) and sometimes intentionally (Cease fire agreements between Hezbollah and Jaysh Al Fateh that involve population exchanges of Shiites and Sunnis) so the future states are already taking shape and it proves a good method for keeping back areas relatively stable by moving the battles to those new fronts. There are a few "tricky" parts in such a general partition plan and yeah, there will still remain some contested areas, but i believe that there would be far less casualties. The best way to prevent sectarian conflicts is to keep those sects apart.