Print

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

[Owlbread]

The most important post-revolution objectives are to impart our political experience onto progressive alliances and to undermine Islamist groups. Otherwise you get shit like in Egypt, where the secularists, Coptics, and moderate Muslims all work at cross purposes when they should be a coalition and make rookie mistakes like abandoning their seats during negotiations, causing the Muslim Brotherhood to acquire Ultimate Power.

Libya is by far the best example of how we can make Islamists look stupid in front of everybody. NATO helped the Libyans get to where they are, and the Islamists in their foolishness murdered the U.S. ambassador not but months later. Viola, they immediately go from vanguards of traditional values to ungrateful sociopathic traitors, hated by the mainstream.

But we didn't make the Islamists look stupid on purpose, they did that by themselves in Libya by killing the US ambassador and several others. We got... well, the word "lucky" is wrong here, but you know what I mean.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We don't have to. By helping the people and giving the West a position as allies instead of indifferent or enemies, we will already have set up the situation for the Islamists to dig their own graves. They'll inevitably respond in such a way that makes them look crazy, because the last thing they want is for the West to make friends in the Islamic world. It will break open the cultural stranglehold they have, and they can't continue to exist if that happens.

They'll either be marginalized by time and the cultural influence that will trickle in from the West, or marginalize themselves trying to stop that from happening.

[PanH]

On the other hand, this is also what is doing Saudia Arabia.
It is more or less known (not officialy), that they helped Egypt, Tunis, Lybia and are currently helping Syria (revolutions, ofc). Islamists are not only a bunch of terrorists, though I think we can say that a laic government is better than a religious one (and seeing what is happening in Tunis only confirms it).

[Another]

Even if only 1 out of 3 military dictators Saudis helped overthrow ended up replaced with fundamentalist islamists - they are still getting 1 country closer to their goals.

[XXSockXX]

The most important post-revolution objectives are to impart our political experience onto progressive alliances and to undermine Islamist groups. Otherwise you get shit like in Egypt, where the secularists, Coptics, and moderate Muslims all work at cross purposes when they should be a coalition and make rookie mistakes like abandoning their seats during negotiations, causing the Muslim Brotherhood to acquire Ultimate Power.

The whole democracy building part is really hard to do and quite unpredictable. You can see that in the former soviet bloc countries. Some are basically on a level with western Europe now, but there are others like Hungary, which seemed most promising for a long time, and is now on the way back to the 1930s by the look of some developments there.
I'm sure Afghanistan will go back to chaos, as soon as all western troops are out. The Muslim Brotherhood are not the most radical of Egypts islamists, only the most established in society, so that could still take a turn for the better. In other countries, we have to wait and see. If you impose too much influence, people will hate the west, if you do nothing, islamists have the best chances, as they are the most organized.
In Syria it's quite difficult to say what could come after Assad, and I guess that is the main reason why nobody has intervened so far. Turkey might want to intervene at some point, but they have their own interests, as Assad is backing the PKK.

[PanH]

Even if only 1 out of 3 military dictators Saudis helped overthrow ended up replaced with fundamentalist islamists - they are still getting 1 country closer to their goals.

I'm more worried about what is happening currently in Syria. It's a pawn battle Russia/Saudi, and I don't think anything good can come of that, be it for Alawis or for the Sunnites.

[Owlbread]

Some have discussed the establishment of an Alawite state, which is something Assad may be moving in the direction of anyway seeing as he is building strong bases in the mountains along the coast. The problem is that an Alawite state like that would have no international airport, poor infrastructure, no real major ports and so on.

An alternative could be a return to a federal Syria, similar to what it used to be like under French occupation. You know, have a devolved Alawite "state" within Syria, same with the Kurdish region, the state of Aleppo and so on. Maybe give one to each of the ethnic groups, so a Druze State etc.

[misko27]

Some have discussed the establishment of an Alawite state, which is something Assad may be moving in the direction of anyway seeing as he is building strong bases in the mountains along the coast. The problem is that an Alawite state like that would have no international airport, poor infrastructure, no real major ports and so on.

An alternative could be a return to a federal Syria, similar to what it used to be like under French occupation. You know, have a devolved Alawite "state" within Syria, same with the Kurdish region, the state of Aleppo and so on. Maybe give one to each of the ethnic groups, so a Druze State etc.

Speaking as a serb, giving too many people their own states leads to factionalized fractitional bullshit.
 
And Syria is both smaller, and and has fewer resources. Can't just cut it up. There won't be a stable government amongst them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Regional autonomy is definitely the way to go with the Kurds, at the least. Iraqi Kurdistan was a major success, and it will pave the way towards there eventually being an independant Kurdistan.

[Owlbread]

Regional autonomy is definitely the way to go with the Kurds, at the least. Iraqi Kurdistan was a major success, and it will pave the way towards there eventually being an independant Kurdistan.

We're going to need some Turkish Kurdish autonomy for that, mind you. That said, the Kurds in Syria seem to be quite regionalist rather than seperatist, yet I do envy their nationalist conviction. If only we had that kind of stuff in Scotland.

Speaking as a serb, giving too many people their own states leads to factionalized fractitional bullshit.
 
And Syria is both smaller, and and has fewer resources. Can't just cut it up. There won't be a stable government amongst them.

Yep, but sometimes nature has to take its course, just like it did in the Balkans. I'll say that even though an independent Alawite State would end probably up more like Transnistria than Kosovo, I'm proposing a federal alternative to that, just like the French installed originally.

[XXSockXX]

Balkanization is not the way to go there. Also it's not a clear territorial thing.
But if the Kurds get autonomy like in northern Iraq, Turkey might feel threatend enough to act. Then we're all in as NATO members.

The Turks will go pretty far to prevent a kurdish state, that is not an option, I think.

[Owlbread]

Balkanization is not the way to go there. Also it's not a clear territorial thing.
But if the Kurds get autonomy like in northern Iraq, Turkey might feel threatend enough to act. Then we're all in as NATO members.

The Turks will go pretty far to prevent a kurdish state, that is not an option, I think.

It's not a clear territorial thing, certainly it's even less clear than it was back in the 40s, but there are still areas dominated by particular ethnic groups/religious groups. The task will be to create federal states that can represent all of the people in their regions.

I mean, it's either this or we have to figure out another way of protecting the Alawites from Sunni domination/possible persecution. There's a reason why they fought to stay at the top, and fighting to stay at the top may have made things even worse.

[XXSockXX]

It's not a clear territorial thing, certainly it's even less clear than it was back in the 40s, but there are still areas dominated by particular ethnic groups/religious groups. The task will be to create federal states that can represent all of the people in their regions.

A federal solution would be pretty good, but the question is if it can be implemented. In Iraq it worked (for the Kurds) because they had been semi-independant since the first Gulf War. In Syria the situation is too unclear currently, it could go any way.
The Turks are not happy with kurdish autonomy in Iraq, and a kurdish state is out of question for them, as that would really shake up their national identity and territorial integrity.

I mean, it's either this or we have to figure out another way of protecting the Alawites from Sunni domination/possible persecution. There's a reason why they fought to stay at the top, and fighting to stay at the top may have made things even worse.

Sure, the minorities will get the worst out of every outcome. There's Christians and Shiites too.

[Owlbread]

It's not a clear territorial thing, certainly it's even less clear than it was back in the 40s, but there are still areas dominated by particular ethnic groups/religious groups. The task will be to create federal states that can represent all of the people in their regions.

A federal solution would be pretty good, but the question is if it can be implemented. In Iraq it worked (for the Kurds) because they had been semi-independant since the first Gulf War. In Syria the situation is too unclear currently, it could go any way.
The Turks are not happy with kurdish autonomy in Iraq, and a kurdish state is out of question for them, as that would really shake up their national identity and territorial integrity.

I believe it could be implemented to an extent in Syria. The Kurds in Syrian Kurdistan are already semi-independent as a result of the war. The Alawites may progress to a similar position as a result of Assad's movements, although it is unclear as to just how many Alawites he will actually be able to convince to join him in his mountain retreat.

These are also big problems that we were going to have to deal with anyway, with Turkey I mean. That whole Kurdish problem wasn't just going to fizzle away if we ignored it.

[XXSockXX]

I believe it could be implemented to an extent in Syria. The Kurds in Syrian Kurdistan are already semi-independent as a result of the war. The Alawites may progress to a similar position as a result of Assad's movements, although it is unclear as to just how many Alawites he will actually be able to convince to join him in his mountain retreat.

These are also big problems that we were going to have to deal with anyway, with Turkey I mean.

It's gonna take a lot of diplomacy. I get to see a lot of the animosity between Turks and Kurds here in Germany, there is no easy solution for this and I don't think a kurdish state will come to exist any time soon. Autonomy might be a possibility in Syria, in Turkey itself probably not.

The Turks have a very capable military, they could intervene under some kind of mandate. Europe I think is neither capable nor willing to do it and the US might have other problems too.